Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Diversity Is Not Enough. We Need Pluralism

In a pluralistic society, power is dispersed, and mutual consent is the order of the day

It was bound to happen.

Ben Borgman, who is gay, recently ejected a group of Christian anti-abortion activists from his coffee shop in Seattle. He took great offense at one of their flyers, which he found outside, and understandably so: It graphically links gay pride with a dismembered fetus. He told them to get out in no uncertain terms (and in very colorful language).

"Heroic Gay Coffee Shop Owner Kicks Out Anti-LGBTQ Group," exulted Out magazine. "Gay coffee shop owner throws out Christian zealots whose leaflets feature rainbow hands dripping blood," is how Pink News put it.

The parallels with a current Supreme Court case are obvious. The justices soon will decide whether a Christian baker can decline to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Gay-rights activists say refusing to do so amounts to blatant discrimination that violates public accommodation laws. Defenders of Masterpiece Cakeshop say the owner, Jack Phillips, is not discriminating against gay people—he will gladly sell them all sorts of baked goods—but rather, exercising a First Amendment right not to create cakes that violate his religious convictions. (He won't make Halloween cakes, either.)

The degree to which religious believers deserve accommodation also turned up last week in two moves by the Trump administration. In one, Attorney General Jeff Sessions laid down new guidelines for federal agencies, directing them to protect the ability of religious people to live out their faith. In the second, the administration expanded religious exemptions to Obamacare's requirement that employers provide insurance coverage for contraception.

Liberal interest groups immediately went ballistic over both.

Which is rather telling. And what it tells us is that "celebrating diversity" means somewhat less than you might think at first blush. It suggests there are really two kinds of diversity—and that only one of them is considered worth cheering.

We might call the first kind shallow diversity. It's the kind that is only skin-deep: the kind that complains the Oscar nominations include too few minorities, or that not enough women major in economics, or that all-white juries are inherently suspect, or that Asians are overrepresented on college campuses.

Shallow diversity is still important and useful: Diverse companies tend to make better decisions and higher profits, for example. Diversity also suggests the absence of discrimination (although organizations can use discrimination to achieve a diverse mix). This kind of diversity enriches everyday experience, fosters tolerance, and broadens understanding.

But a superficially diverse community can still lack diversity in a deeper sense. Take higher education: Colleges and universities go to great lengths to pursue demographic diversity in the faculty and the student body. But over the past couple of decades campuses have grown decidedly more liberal—to the point that in some fields, conservative voices are nearly extinct. Yet there is no corresponding effort to increase ideological diversity in higher education.

And this holds true despite the fact that while conservatives and liberals might disagree about, say, whether racism is a personal character flaw or a coordinated system of social control, they share many values and assumptions common to the American upper middle-class. They are apt to live in similar homes, read similar books, and—most importantly—share similar ideas of what the good society entails.

Celebrating diversity gets harder the further down it goes. What happens when people disagree fundamentally about what the good society looks like?

One answer involves the use of raw power to make others knuckle under. That is the answer preferred by many on the right: Build a wall. Make English the nation's official language. Lock up drug addicts. Ban pornography. Prohibit gay marriage. Fire every pro football player who doesn't stand during compulsory patriotic rituals preceding sporting events that mimic wars between nation-states. And so on.

But it also seems to be the answer preferred by many on the left as well: Ban or disrupt any speech that threatens liberal orthodoxy. Make Catholic nuns provide contraception. Reject and defund student groups guilty of wrongthink. Force Christian bakers to participate in gay weddings. And so on.

Deep and genuine diversity requires something more—namely, pluralism. In a pluralistic society, power is dispersed, and mutual consent is the order of the day. Different visions of the good society are permitted to coexist—even if some of them are offensive. People are allowed to be wrong—sometimes even outrageously so.

Suppose Ben Borgman had been a printer instead of a coffee shop owner, and the Christian group had asked him to print its bloody flyers. Should the government have made him do it?

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

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.

  • ||

    Will they bake cakes or print fliers for....Canadians?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    NEVER

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    This only applies to people, Rufus.

  • Rat on a train||

    We don't annex out of respect for hockey. As long as you keep a team you are safe.

  • Illocust||

    I like that use of words. Diversity vs Pluralism. Pluralism is the thing that all the studies say a good company should have. A variety of opinions and experiences. Diversity is a thing that can help create Pluralism, but it is a tool that can be misused and even subvert the actual goal.

  • Rich||

    Pluralism is the thing that all the studies say a good company should have.

    Citation needed.

  • ||

    Not to speak for him, but; I think the statement contained an element of "devil's advocate"; *if* we all agree that groupthink or single/narrow-mindedness is a bad thing, pluralism is the treatment/cure.

  • Rich||

    What happens when people disagree fundamentally about what the good society looks like?

    "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ...."

  • SIV||

    Fuck Diversity

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    What breed of chicken is Diversity?

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    Diversity is the name of his stripper cousin

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Go on.........

  • John||

    People are always going to disagree fundamentally about what the good society looks like. You have two choices for how to deal with this; learn to leave each other alone and agree to disagree or start killing each other until one side enforces its will on everyone else.

    The Founders did not enshrine religious freedom in the Constitution because they had some special love for religion. They enshrined religious freedom and prohibited the establishment of a state religion because they had seen the religious wars in Europe and understood that a society that fucks with people's most deeply held beliefs is a society headed for violence and bloodshed. Sadly, Progressives got around the prohibition against a state religion by calling their religion secular and replacing the worship of a God with the worship of government. And being pig ignorant, Progressives have no understanding of the risks associated with the government going after people's religious beliefs.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Secularism is not a religion, you retard.

  • juris imprudent||

    Are you disputing the proggie worship of govt?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Ayn Rand was a vocal secularist. Are you saying she worshiped government?

    There are millions of us who don't.

  • JFree||

    No. She worshipped the heroic individual as an abstraction. Not the flesh-and-blood personal individual (as exists in real life) or the inevitably flawed individual who is eternally striving for self-improvement (as in pretty much all religions). She herself wrote - My life purpose is the creation of the kind of world that I like - that is that represents human perfection.

    That is basically nothing more than an egoistic version of Comte's Religion of Humanity. Much like the Nietzschean version - except that Rand ultimately rejected the Nietzschean interpretation.

  • mpercy||

    "replacing the worship of a God with the worship of government"

    Worship of government as a religion, but one that is *called* secular by the progressives in an attempt to have their worship of government rightly deemed as a religion (and therefore not to be imposed on others).

  • JFree||

    The hell it isn't. Legally, secularism (or the French term for the same thing - laïcité) is the state 'protecting' itself from religion by mandating a 'separation' that is defined/enforced by the state itself. At core, it is a way of bypassing the 1st Amendment by having the state define the proper place/role of religion - eg the 1905 French law on the 'separation of church and state'. It may not result in active oppression of religion - but it certainly can (eg Mexico) and it will always result in the usual silly coercions (banning public wearing of hijabs and kippas in France). And the basic rationale of secularism is identical to any other religion - adherence to a system of belief that is based on faith/trust rather than a system of non-belief based on skepticism/evidence.

    the word secularism itself was coined by George Holyoake who was influenced in that by Auguste Comte (founder of positivism and sociology) - and Comte was DELIBERATELY creating a alternative religion that he called 'Humanism'. The very attempt to stuff 'religion' into an academic discipline called 'sociology' is an attempt to limit religion to its rituals/manifestations in order to strip it of either internal meaning or to try to understand it on its own terms. Which is the academic version of coercive power - and no surprise the academes become the pharisees/justifiers of political secularism to the sadduccees/ritualisers of 'civil religion' (ie secularism) in the US.

  • ||

    Excellent. Thank you for this.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Oh, bullshit.

    Definition of secularism

    :indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

    What tortured "logic" on your part. Or you just hate the separation of church and state.

  • JFree||

    that definition is a perfect example of circularity or assuming the conclusion. Which means it was created by someone who defines 'religion' in purely sociological terms.

    And I'm very much a fan of 'separation'. I am not a fan of either the church or the state being the determiner of that separation - because that necessarily means one is subordinate to the other and it usually results in an arrogance which combined with power/authority is always deadly. That is NOT separation but subordination. I far prefer the rationale of a Roger Williams (directed to his fellow believers about why they should restrain themselves from imposing on others of different belief) or the Flushing Remonstrance (believers complaining to the state on behalf of a different group of believers).
    Unfortunately the latter is often made illegal in a regime of secularism - see the Cristeros in Mexico or Barth/Niemoller/Bonhoeffer under the Nazis. Or the group has no friends and therefore has to, at best, settle for a particularistic 'legislative exemption' rather than a general restraint (eg Valentine Byler/Amish/Social Security - or for that matter most of the colleges/hospitals in the US which were forced by the state into competing with the state).

    I have yet to see much humility or restraint from secularists like you using definitions like yours.

  • JFree||

    As an aside - here's an excellent essay from John Gray in 2002 making the same point - The Myth of Secularism.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/node/156832

  • Tony||

    Nice "live and let live" attitude you're expressing, especially there toward the end.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    Hey Tony, just so that I have the narrative straight, we are blaming the California wildfires on global warming, right?

  • ||

    Per KPFA, our local far-left outlet, yes. It is absolutely the fault of global warming, and it's an outrage that the Capitalist media is ignoring it. Jesse Jackson was on DemocracyNow just this morning explaining how carcinogens in the air have carved a hole in the ozone layer that is causing these wildfires.

    I swear to God I wish I were making that up.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    I listen to KPFA for giggles too and Miguel Gavilan Molina was talking about how global warming was being used as a weapon against brown people in Santa Rrrrrrrrosa.

  • Longtobefree||

    Wait, what?
    Global warming (or it's more liberal cousin climate change) only affects brown people?
    Far out!
    So God is a racist. Whoda thunk it?

    For the search engine challenged, KPFA is a listener supported (echo chamber) radio station in Berkeley California. So free speech and all that. And hopefully one day, secession.

  • Finrod||

    And yet it's the Left that keeps whining that their opponents are anti-science, when they don't know the first fucking thing about science or the scientific method.

  • Tony||

    Just so I have it right, you believe global warming is a coordinated fabrication of nearly 100% of the world's experts, institutions, and governments in order to... something something Al Gore?

  • damikesc||

    In order to get government money to justify further government control of the economy, Tony. Isn't it odd that the proposals to deal with cooling and warming were basically identical?

    Not even a very complex idea.

  • ||

    you believe global warming is a coordinated fabrication of nearly 100% of the world's experts, institutions, and governments in order to... something something Al Gore?

    Yes. That's exactly what he said.

  • Azathoth!!||

    What always gets me is that you all never seem to grasp that it was 97% of the scientists who responded to the survey, not 97% of all the climate experts in the world--not even 97% of the people who the survey was sent to.

    Just 97% of the respondents.

    And we're supposed to think you can grasp anything about even the simplest science? It's a wonder that you all can breathe without being reminded.

  • ||

    What always gets me is that you all never seem to grasp that it was 97% of the scientists who responded to the survey, not 97% of all the climate experts in the world--not even 97% of the people who the survey was sent to.

    Just 97% of the respondents.

    And the 97% of respondent "scientists" were self-identified.

    But it's not as if this is the first time this has been pointed out to Tony. Or even the second or third.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "you believe global warming is a coordinated fabrication of nearly 100% of the world's experts"
    Well those that disagree have been advised by their attorneys not to comment because, you know, they could be sued by a bunch of state attorneys general. So it's possible your 100% figure is inflated. But you're correct that it's a coordinated fabrication.

  • John||

    So what book did you read?

  • John||

    Thanks. That looks interesting. I might have to read that.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    You know what else is weird? Traditionally, the ideological battle between cosmos and yokels is framed in terms of pluralism vs. insularism. But here we are, with yokels celebrating pluralism. What is the world coming to?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Of course it's yokels celebrating pluralism--cosmos are too busy being all cliquey at their fancy cocktail parties to appreciate a difference of opinion.

  • Lily Bulero||

    "One answer involves the use of raw power to make others knuckle under. That is the answer preferred by many on the right: Build a wall."

    What does a wall make people "knuckle under" to? The immigration laws? Does this mean that enforcing the immigration laws is wrong, even in the mild form of keeping illegals from entering in the first place (not keeping out *all* illegals, that's a straw man).

    "Make English the nation's official language."

    What's the official language? The language in which laws and regulations are printed, and official business conducted? While there are exceptions (like bilingual ballots), in most cases English is *already* the official language.

    "Lock up drug addicts. Ban pornography."

    Yes, plenty of conservatives want to do that. Not just lock up addicts, but users, too. Likewise pornography. Though it's debatable the extent to which this is a right-wing monopoly.

    "Prohibit gay marriage."

    Reason usually uses the more accurate term "gay marriage *recognition.*" That is, should the state give its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval (with the civil-service purges and compulsory cakes that follow in the wake of such approval)?

    "Fire every pro football player who doesn't stand during compulsory patriotic rituals preceding sporting events that mimic wars between nation-states."

    Yes, some on the right want that, though I think what they want specifically is for the players' employers, not the government, to do the firing, on pain of boycott.

  • John||

    The Reason staff think that getting their way is just tolerant and another example of the flowers that flow out of Gillespie's ass and anyone who disagrees with them just expects everyone to knuckle under.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Well, now, I wouldn't put it *quite* that way - just that seem to want to balance out left-wing abuses with right-wing abuses - perhaps for fear of being called rightist?

    If that's the motive, then, hint, they're *already* being called rightist.

  • John||

    On immigration, they want to avoid a substantive debate by claiming anything short of totally open borders is a morally illegitimate position. So, anyone wanting a wall is just demanding everyone knuckle under to their will. Anyone who demands that the country accept all comers no matter who they are, are just affirming pluralism and in no way demanding anyone knuckle under to their will. See how that works?

  • Azathoth!!||

    If the writers at reason are forced to admit that the left does anything bad, they will torture rhetoric beyond endurance to say that the right does that same bad thing, as well, to be sure.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What's the official language? The language in which laws and regulations are printed, and official business conducted? While there are exceptions (like bilingual ballots), in most cases English is *already* the official language.

    There is some difference between de facto language, English is the de facto language at the federal level, and an official language. The biggest one is that it forces certain behavior upon lower governments. I think it's actually a good thing of our system that we don't have an official language, as it gives different jurisdictions power to vary with their constituency.

  • Rhywun||

    bilingual ballots

    LOL. My local ballot came in at least 4, the last time I looked. Oh, and every neighborhood gets a different set of 4+ languages.

    Anyway, there's a difference between coercive policy and common sense. There are countries with no national language that nevertheless do not feel compelled coddle every foreigner in its borders who can't be bothered to learn even the basics of the dominant tongue.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Oh, and every neighborhood gets a different set of 4+ languages.

    I can't even comprehend the amount of terror you live under.

  • Rhywun||

    I'm trembling. WTF are you talking about?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I just imagine that many languages at once like a scene from Black Hawk Down. Terrifying.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's New York.

    You get a guy in the back of the train talking on the phone in Hebrew, two little old Italian ladies chattering away, all draped in black, a couple of teenage Puerto Rican girls making snide remarks about everyone in Spanish blithely unaware that half the train can understand them, a group of Japanese guys passing around a phone with some show playing in Japanese. Three street performers who think there's enough room to breakdance for money on a slightly pre-rush hour train and a small group of geeks arguing about the new Trek show in Klingon.

    Four languages is nothing.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I like the way you think Lily. Always enjoy reading your comments.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Like the song too. Except for that whole Gaelic thing.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That is the answer preferred by many on the right: Build a wall............etc

    But think about the cool uniforms and the goose-stepping!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    That's you progtards dumbass.

  • GILMORE™||

    The term pluralism should be used more often. i still think the idea will be mostly misunderstood. particularly the notion that my own intellectual freedom relies on leaving other people free to have/express terrible ideas.

    it would be nice if the term "freedom of association" were also occasionally used. or "freedom to discriminate".

    but then Reason would be literally advocating racism (a la Rand Paul) and that wouldn't play well on twitter.

  • Tony||

    You people are obsessed with "freedom of association" as if it is really meaningful in a daily context. You can't decide whom to associate with in most places outside your home. You can't have the cops clear the 7-11 of people you don't want to associate with before you enter. You don't get to choose who you work with.

    What you really mean is the freedom of powerful people to systematically eject undesirables from employment or other means of participating in commerce. This freedom, if it has any practical meaning, is the freedom to subjugate people.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What you really mean is the freedom of powerful people to systematically eject undesirables from employment or other means of participating in commerce.

    Like that gay dude who ejected the Christians?

    I can't speak for other commenters here, but I support his actions. 'Cause this dog's consistent on freedom of association.

  • damikesc||

    I oppose it solely because laws forbidding that, while terrible, should be equally enforced. Nothing kills a bad law like making everybody live under it. Nothing keeps it alive by only making SOME people live under it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm willing to let it be unequal because it allows me to mercilessly point out the glaring inconsistency.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Now you are talking like a true H&R commenter.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I gotta be me.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Nothing kills a bad law like making everybody live under it.

    And what is your evidence supporting this?

    Bonus points if you can find any law that has been enforced so equally.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    There's *some* evidence that if The Right people start to get hammered by a law that was only meant to get The Wrong People, that legislators start to take a harder look at it.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    See minorities and soda pop taxes.

  • John||

    The thing you have to remember when dealing with Tony or Shreek is that they are Progressives and like all Progs either cannot grasp or refuse to grasp abstract ideas. Progs like their Marxist forebearers are crude materialists and see the world strictly in terms of material results. So you and I see the gay guy kicking the Christians out of his coffee shop in abstract terms of property rights and the right to free association. Tony and Shreek see it in crude material terms of good guy kicking bad guy out. They think of it in terms of identity and power. So if the roles are reversed, yours and my positions do not change but Tony and Shreek's positions will.

    This is why Progs always and forever embrace some form of collective guilt and identity politics. Embracing individual rights and judging each person separately by their own merits requires understanding and accepting abstract concepts that Progs are unable to do.

  • ||

    I just wanted to point out that yesterday John was comparing boycotting anti-gay businesses with arson.
    Pluralism for me , but not for thee.

  • John||

    I just want to point out that Hazel is retarded and can't understand the difference between something being a bad idea and it being okay to make it illegal.

    Are you really that stupid or are you just that dishonest or both? Tony and Shreek are just trolls. But you really seem to be this dumb. It is kind of frightening.

  • Kivlor||

    And Hazel rushes in to prove John right. Abstraction is beyond her.

  • Tony||

    I never once expressed support for that guy's actions.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Progresssives have no souls.

  • jcw||

    I'm not sure we share the same definition of "freedom of association." Someone definitely gets to choose who they work with, by choosing their employer. Is that not understood? Freedom of association isn't forcing your boss to hire people you like, it's being able to move jobs.

    You don't have to enter the 7-11 if you deem the other customers as important enough to determine your choice of establishment. You don't get to tell the 7-11 owner who is allowed in or not.

    What you are describing is actually the literal opposite of freedom of association.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You don't have to enter the 7-11 if you deem the other customers as important enough to determine your choice of establishment

    You should be forced to go in at gunpoint, anything less is subjugation.

  • Longtobefree||

    Not at gunpoint, guns are evil, and come to life and kill millions randomly all on their own.
    Just use calm and polite nightsticks (war clubs) like in the old days.

  • GILMORE™||

    "Fuck off slaver" would also have been a good answer.

  • Lily Bulero||

    I suppose if you count shopkeepers and bakers among the powerful, then sure, let's go with your interpretation.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""You people are obsessed with "freedom of association" as if it is really meaningful in a daily context.""

    Fact:

    When you install FASCR, the name "Tony" is added to the blocklist/banned-commenters by default

    I can't think of any more-meaningful context.

  • Tony||

    Ha you can't even handle different opinions on a fucking website. "Free Berkeley from the speech police!"

  • GILMORE™||

    no, we handle them all the time. constantly, all day every day. its just that it gets tiring pointing out what an idiot you are, and so we tune you out, because otherwise...

    ....well, every thread would be all 'that' all the time.

    bye

  • GILMORE™||

    ""This freedom, if it has any practical meaning...""

    Is a gay bar.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Funny to see the different conceptions of freedom manifested in such an extreme way.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Tony actually raises a very good point and of course it is going to be ignored because of everyone's general hate for him. What do we mean by freedom of association? Tony, most libertarians are simply referring to property rights. Meaning, you have the right to associate with whom you want on your property. And that includes private property that is open to the public.

    Should we have a separate class of private property that is governed by different rules when it is open to the public? This question has not been discussed enough by libertarians.

  • John||

    Should we have such a class? To say yes is to reject freedom of association as a meaningful right or reject the right to contract and do business as a meaningful right. What Tony is saying is that giving up your right to freedom of association should be the price of making a living. Rights are not contingent upon each other. You have the right to do something or you don't. If your ability to legally do something is contingent upon you giving up another right, then it is not really a right. Or the thing you are be expected to give up is not a right.

    When you consider that Tony does not recognize any kind of economic rights and sees all forms of commerce to be the property of the state, you then understand why he answers this question in the affirmative and why anyone who values freedom should answer it in the negative.

  • ||

    You guys are pretending that Tony is expressing something other than "People who use the phrase 'freedom of association'" are really saying 'I hate black people.'"

    There is nothing more to it than that, and you guys have been here long enough to know better.

    smdh

  • John||

    Yes. Tony is a crude materialist who sees the world as a morality play where good people are rewarded and bad people are punished.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yeah exactly. Tony's not that hard to figure out. Although i do sort of wonder if he was trying to tell us he's been kicked out of a lot of 7-11s...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He looks too similar to folkloric demons in many Arabic and Northern Indian mythology.

  • ||

    He goes in waving his many arms shouting "Hanji!" and they just start shooting.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Basically, what I am asking is whether libertarians support putting an easement on a property to prevent right violations. One example of this is the Blockean proviso, which guarantees a right of travel to someone whose property is surrounded by someone else's property. Only fools like Kinsella reject it. A broader version of it is the Simple-Connectedness Proviso, which guarantees a path from one property to another. One could say public roads satisfy this one today.

    Now I am asking if some sort of proviso should be recognized for other sort of situations. I simply don't know. Someone would have to present a situation where it would seem justified. I will not hold my breath that Tony can provide such an example.

  • John||

    And the answer to that is no. Why should I have to give up my right to free association as a condition of exercising my right to make an honest living? What other rights would you like to make contingent upon one another? How about we make everyone swear a loyalty oath before donating to a political campaign or engaging in public political debate? If the right to free association can be contingent, I don't see why the right to free expression should not be as well.

  • Tony||

    Anti-discrimination laws that have existed for decades don't count? All of these exceptions assume a property rights absolutism that has never existed. You can't do whatever you want even in your own house. If you sell goods or services to the public, rules exist for that too. It's just civilization. And it's not the end of the world because one rule that limits a property owner's liberties in order to prevent a Jim Crow-esque regime. Lots of other rules that limit his liberties already exist, and presumably you all are OK with them because they involve requiring them not to initiate harm on customers. Well, this is another rule requiring them not to harm customers.

  • John||

    Those laws are wrong Tony. All you are doing here is begging the question. God you are fucking stupid.

  • Myshkin78||

    This is a pretty absurd stretch of the definition of harm. Personally, I wouldn't buy a cake at this establishment because I'm a big fan of Halloween and I find opposition to it rather irritating. Am I harmed by their refusal to bake Halloween cakes? Certainly not.

    They are exercising their right to do business as they see fit and I am exercising my right to do business with someone who better serves my needs as a consumer.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    One example that might come to mind of a time for a reasonable application of such a concept would be something like a privately owned emergency room. Should a society concerned with property rights accept that an emergency room could discriminate based on the biases of its owners?

    In this case, the argument could be made that the market would "right" the atrocity of letting people die or suffer needlessly: the emergency room surely wouldn't survive for long in such a case. However, unlike most examples of this argument, in this case people might actually die after having a reasonable expectation that an emergency room might save their lives. It's a very extreme case, mind you.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    You pose an interesting question. The property right is in conflict with the right to travel so reasonable accommodations have been made for both parties. Both are natural rights in my view. I don't believe that buying coffee or cake at a particular establishment is a natural right so I see no need for government involvement.

  • CE||

    We can't have freedom of association because some people are mean and will discriminate against others. Even though they have a financial disincentive not to do so, and the historical discrimination was enforced by governments, not cartels of racist business owners.

  • GILMORE™||

    Tony, most libertarians are simply referring to property rights

    no. it means what it says.

    Essentials of Human Rights describes the right as coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights....

    Freedom of association is manifested through the right to join a trade union, to engage in free speech or to participate in debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association, including religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs. It is closely linked with freedom of assembly, particularly under the U.S. Bill of Rights.

    it is not about property rights. its about any and all association with other people being voluntary.

    also, people have a general hatred of Tony because he is very stupid.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Gilmore, it always comes down to property rights. You can't assemble on someone else's property or prevent someone from assembling on theirs.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    One might say that libertarianism proceeds from the fact that one's self (physical, mental, etc.) is one's property.

  • GILMORE™||

    its irrelevant. I can join an organization without needing to access someone else's property, and i can refuse to join organizations without them accessing mine. The fact you can't fit the idea in your reductionist framework isn't my problem.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    How are you going to join an organization without accessing their property?

  • GILMORE™||

    I don't know, you've truly stumped me

    meanwhile, sign this petition

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Doesn't someone own the paper on which the petition is written? Also, where are you standing? Are you standing inside a mall that allows soliciting?

  • GILMORE™||

    truly, you possess a dizzying intellect

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    DEFINE ENOUGH, PROG

    It's part property rights, part contract rights, part authority for intervention. If it's on your property, others use it at your leisure, as ownership comes down to excludability. If it's an agreement between two parties, parties should be allowed to set their own terms and decide by their own criteria, even if it's stupid or irrational. There are always exceptions, especially in times of emergency, but these are the base presumptions. If someone wants to punish you for refusing to welcome or do business with X, that someone needs a damn compelling reason.

  • Qsl||

    Should we have a separate class of private property that is governed by different rules when it is open to the public?

    But you do.

    Someone enters your house, you by all rights use lethal force. Someone attempts the same to your Kwik-E-Mart and that's at least aggravated assault. Trespassing laws don't have the same meaning when you are at least theoretically open to the public.

    And not only that, fundamentalist libertarians treat all private property as the same. I've never had an easement on any of my books. Pissing on your land is at worst polluting; pissing on your face, assault. How can this be?

    Geolibertarians at least figured out land was a special case, and you can not in the same breath hold the NAP as sacred while claiming ownership of the spoils of war. Their conclusions might be off, but their critiques are solid.

  • ||

    Trespassing laws don't have the same meaning when you are at least theoretically open to the public.

    Yes, they do. It isn't trespassing if you are invited in. You can't invite someone into your home and then shoot them claiming them to be trespassers. When a business posts a sign saying "Open," that's an invitation for people to enter. If you enter when the store is closed, you are trespassing, and they can shoot you.

    I've never had an easement on any of my books.

    They're generally not considered to be valuable enough to quibble over title. But, say, The Domesday Book? - yeah, there are actually some complex title relationships.

    Pissing on your land is at worst polluting; pissing on your face, assault. How can this be?

    Punching your land is at worst vandalism; punching your face, assault. Same logic. Property rights in these cases have to do with damage.

    you can not in the same breath hold the NAP as sacred while claiming ownership of the spoils of war

    Then no one who owns any land can adhere to the NAP? What if they have an epiphany?

    You want to see some rampant violations of the NAP? Get rid of land ownership.

  • Qsl||

    When a business posts a sign saying "Open"...

    Is that a regulation that all businesses have such a sign, you little bureaucrat, or an inferred contract that exists independent of property? Again, there is no Castle Doctrine even for a revoked invitation to your business. nor do you have immunity for shooting kids who cross your lawn.

    They're generally not considered to be valuable

    Easement is based upon value? Do tell! And if I buy a collector's car worth several millions, it can have an easement placed upon it simply based upon its value?

    Property rights in these cases have to do with damage.

    So if I punch your land enough, it can be considered assault?

    You want to see some rampant violations of the NAP?

    Nice way to side-step the issue. Benefiting from a crime is at least considered accessory. You don't get to claim the NAP after the fact without looking more of a hypocrite than you do now.

    And fact of the matter is than even the conceptions of land ownership vary from right to roam to public lands. The depth and breadth laws covering aspects as diverse as mineral rights to archaeological sits mark it as a special case and is plainly obvious to anyone who isn't being disingenuous.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "You can't invite someone into your home and then shoot them claiming them to be trespassers."
    Theoretically? Sure.

    Literally? Depends on jurisdiction. Many "stand your ground" laws are wide enough that you can get away with that. We've had parents shoot their own kids (who still live at home) because they thought the kid was a trespasser. And get away without any chargers. Under these laws, you just have to say "I was afraid" regardless of whether that fear was reasonable.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "You can't decide whom to associate with in most places outside your home." I decide every day who I associate with and I don't have to subjugate anyone or empower anyone else to do so. I'd like to sit and have a few beers with you Tony. We wouldn't agree on everything but I'm pretty sure it would be a good time.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm always pleased to see three white people, a Jew, two black people and an Indian voting unanimously on every topic.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Diversity means that you can be a black progressive, an Asians progressive, a Jewish progressive, a female progressive or in some rare cases you can be a white progressive but only if you genuflect regularly to every other progressive and apologize for your skin color and your privilege.

    Under these rules Ayann Hirsi Ali is neither black, nor a woman since she (oops!... I mean "it") is not a progressive. The proper gender pronoun for Ayann does not exist since a non-progressive with a vagina is a metaphysical impossibility.

  • Longtobefree||

    Please clarify what you mean by the racist terms "Jew" and "Indian".
    Designate if you use the term "Jew" to identify a race or a religion.
    By "Indian" are you trying to specify some one with roots in the Indian continent, or someone with roots in those who were not native to North America, but happened to be on the North American continent when the non-Spanish, non-French Europeans arrived?

    Thanks.

  • Lily Bulero||

    My attitude is that I don't trust the government to decide what ideas are bad.

    Even if the govt. was right, wrongthinkers can keep people on their toes.

    Anyway, the views the govt designates as wrong are those views which poll badly, or interfere with dubious government operations (eg, by revealing what the govt is doing or criticizing what it's doing).

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Boy Scouts to Admit Girls, Allow Them to Become Eagle Scouts

    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news.....47223.html

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    When are the girl scouts allowing boys?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Aww, it's still different. The girl scouts only allow 'boys' if they identify as a girl. Seems the dude-scouts are more inclusive.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    There has to be a "religious freedom" angle to this to allow conservatives to force their morality onto others.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Like the way you try and push your communism and racism on everyone, all the time?

  • Rich||

    "Cub Scout dens will be single-gender — all boys or all girls," the organization said in a statement. A separate program for older girls will be available in 2019

    So, "admit" "girls".

  • DajjaI||

    Just ban me again - problem solved.

  • Lester224||

    Handing out leaflets with pictures of a gay pride flag dripping blood directly in front of the store when the owner is known to be gay? Was that leafleting on his property? If so, it's more like kicking out people who are shouting insults in your place of business. Disorderly or obnoxious conduct. If the leaflet-handing-out was not being done on his property, then it's a valid comparison to not accommodating people you don't agree with in your place of business.

  • John||

    I don't see any indication the people were doing anything to cause a disturbance. And they are free to handout flyers wherever they want, provided it is in a public area or the owner of the property doesn't object.

    The bottom line here is the owner of the shop kicked them out because he didn't like them. And it is and should be his right to do so. He doesn't owe them taking their business any more than they owe him giving it to them. But, the owner doesn't have any kind of religious objection here. Serving these people isn't forcing him to indirectly participate in the protest. So, this case is different than the bakery case. A more analogous case to the bakery case would be if the group wanted their flyers printed by a gay printer who then refused.

    Whatever you think of the coffee shop owner, his actions are not quite the same as the bakery owner, though both party's actions are acceptable under a broad belief in freedom of association.

  • Lily Bulero||

    If the protesters were as litigious and repressive as some think they are, they could file a religious-freedom suit.

    The coffee shop guy could say he has no objection to their religion as such, but to their leaflet.

    They would reply that their leaflet is religious expression.

    It would come down to the sympathies of the judge.

    So far the question doesn't arise because it seems these protesters are simply replying to the coffee shop guy's speech with more speech, which is no more oppressive than a Yelp review.

  • John||

    All the people did was film the guy being an asshole and stick it on the web. They never sued or demanded he take their business. Doing that, however, shocked the conscience of Shackford. The protesters acted exactly as you would want such people to act. Hey, you don't want my business and want to be an asshole about it, fine, but understand we are going to publicize this and you can live with the consequences. I really do not see why it is an issue other than Reason is butt hurt about the Christians not rolling over and playing the same games gays have been playing with them.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Reason is butt hurt about the Christians not rolling over and playing the same games gays have been playing with them

    Let's take a moment to appreciate the way John phrased this.

  • John||

    And yes it was intentional. Queer threads are so ripe for the most disgusting double entrendres.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Ha ha.

    If I had to guess, I'd say that Reason is under the impression that they can make the mainstream acknowledge them as "economically conservative, socially liberal," rather than "a bunch of right-wing Koch nuts." Sadly, the latter is how Reason is viewed by most of the people they're trying to impress.

    Still, political miracles do happen, we've seen it last year, maybe libertarians can reach out to the left and wean them from Democrats. I doubt it will happen, but I can's say definitively that it won't.

    It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future. /attributed to Yogi Berra

  • ||

    If I had to guess, I'd say that Reason is under the impression that they can make the mainstream acknowledge them as "economically conservative, socially liberal," rather than "a bunch of right-wing Koch nuts."

    ^ Exactly this. It's the LP attempt to rebrand as "Centrist" rather than "Far-Right Extremist."

    Maybe it'll work. Who can say? I sure do know a lot of liberals who are scratching their heads at the Dems right now, but who would never entertain the thought of Republicans.

  • John||

    Even if it does work, what will it accomplish? Will those liberals buy into economic freedom and gun rights? I doubt it. What it more likely to happen is Libertarians will give up their commitment to economic freedom and guns and religious freedom and the other things that make their newfound Dem supporters uncomfortable and Libertarianism will come to mean, drugs, sodomy and open borders and not much else.

    The deeper question here is are the Reason Libertarians trying to turn leftists into Libertarians or are they trying to turn Libertarians into leftists?

  • ||

    What it more likely to happen is Libertarians will give up their commitment to economic freedom

    You mean like free trade? *ahem*

  • John||

    Nothing says economic freedom Hazel like launching a jihad against anyone who engages in unacceptable business practices. Sorry but you are not really in a position to affirm your belief in economic rights.

  • ||

    Yeah, economic freedom is all about the right to be a dick to black people.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Were there black people at the coffee shop or bakery or did you lunge OT? The only dick I saw was a white gay guy.

  • ||

    Even if it does work, what will it accomplish?

    Who can say? Decades of counting on Republican support hasn't exactly panned out.

  • John||

    Turning into leftists is one solution. Not sure it is a good solution, but it is a solution.

  • Rhywun||

    I sure do know a lot of liberals who are scratching their heads at the Dems right now, but who would never entertain the thought of Republicans.

    ^This. The Republican "brand" is completely trashed in blue America, through a combination of their own stupidity and the left's wily machinery & outright propaganda.

    We're having mayoral debates in my city - the idea that the communist will win again with 75% of the vote is just laughable when he's not even popular. The nice lady Republican says reasonable Republican things and doesn't have a f-----g chance.

  • John||

    The Dem brand is just as trashed in red areas Rywun. I would love nothing better than to see Libertarians elected in cities like the one you mention, but I honestly can't see it happening. That communist won the Democratic nomination. If there were all of these reasonable Democrats out there that just can't vote for the evil Republicans, I don't see how a communist could have won the primary.

  • Rhywun||

    It was his turn - seriously. He took the exact sequence of jobs that leads a Democrat to the mayor's office. What he believes doesn't matter.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    New Yorkers really deserve to suffer for their electoral stupidity. Bringing the country Andrew Cuomo, Hillary Clinton. Chuck Schumer, and Bill DeBlasio, just to name a few. NYC should suffer ,associate punishment for these things.

    Maybe 'Escape From New York' kind of punishment. Contain the, like the filthy animals they are.

  • ||

    And people are free to shout insults at the assholes handing out flyers.

    Why is it that you think "pluralism" means tolerating anti-gay assholes, but not tolerating ... gay people. You want a society in which it's okay to spew insults at gay people, but where it's untoward to spew insults right back.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Speaking for myself, I want a society where it's legal for people to insult each other, with private-sector consequences if applicable.

  • John||

    Why are you so stupid Hazel? Really, you seem completely incapable of making an honest argument or exhibiting any understanding of the issues you are discussing. Nowhere have I ever said that the gay guy isn't free to say what he likes or kick whomever he likes out of his shop. And nothing I have said could reasonably imply that. Come back when you can give a sensible response because this is just sad.

  • ||

    No, you're just comparing it to "cultural marxism".
    Get that? Kicking anti-gay assholes out of your shop is JUST LIKE MARXISM!

  • John||

    That is because that is what it is. Just because he is free to be a cultural Marxist doesn't mean I have to pretend that he isn't one. Again, you can't seem to grasp the difference between your right to be something and finding that something objectionable.

  • CE||

    I think the word you want is "individualism". In a society where governments respect individual rights, group identity is a lot less important.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yeah, but judging people by their membership in a more or less arbitrary group is sooo much easier than relating to them one individual to another.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Word. I hate all people that belong to the grpup of people that don't respect individualism.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Jesus, you hate like 90% of the population.

  • NoVaNick||

    I have been seeing lots of signs in prog neighborhoods since the election that read "hate has no home here," "no matter who you are we are glad you are our neighbor," etc.

    Pretty obvious to me that they would not welcome a Trump voter as their neighbor, but what about a Muslim family where the husband beats the wife? I mean-diversity is about respecting other cultures, right?

  • John||

    And if those neighborhoods are anything like the ones I know, they are heavily zoned to ensure only the right kinds of people are able to buy there. And those same "all are welcome" progs send their kids either to public schools attendance at which are geographically limited to good neighborhoods or private schools that are priced to ensure the wrong kids do not attend and do everything they can to ensure that poor kids don't get vouchers or school choice that would enable them to attend their little snowflake's school.

    But hey, they put a sign up saying how welcoming they are. It is not their job to suffer for their principles. It is everyone else's job.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Also the implication is that enforcing immigration laws, or suspending immigration from problem countries "until we figure out what's going on," is the same as being against immigration or for racism.

  • John||

    Yes. And understand the people who put those signs up will never see their kid's school overrun with refugees or their neighborhood or community adversely affected by them. And would never tolerate such things happening. They just expect other lesser people to suffer so that they can feel morally superior.

  • Lily Bulero||

    I know someone in a non-wealthy neighborhood who has that sign.

    All generalizations are wrong.

  • John||

    I mean the people that NoVANick saw with the signs, not everyone who put up a sign. Sorry not to make that clear.

  • NoVaNick||

    Yep-they are very wealthy prog hoods that are so "welcoming" and are mostly white. Of course, the people who live in them might feel a little guilty about it, but its nothing that a sign or bumper sticker can't fix.

  • ||

    One of my favorite little anecdotes I heard from a park ranger in Colorado. She was talking about a conversation she'd had with a Hopi woman who said "you know what the big difference is between your culture and ours? We're inclusive. You people are exclusive, and that's what's wrong with your culture."

  • Longtobefree||

    Which one has a council that determines tribe eligibility?

  • ||

    I'm not sure that it's possible to have a pluralism that literally encompasses all races, religions and points of view.
    For instance, can pluralism include people who aren't pluralistic in their own views? For examples, racists who claim the right to exclude blacks aren't being pluralistic towards black people. If you say let's have pluralism that is inclusive of racist beliefs, if there are enough racists out there, then you would basically be tolerating non-pluralism towards blacks. You would be prohibited from doing anything about racists being assholes to black people. It really comes down to a question of who do you think society should be more inclusive of (a) racists or (b) black people. It's impossible to include the people who are trying to exclude black people, without that resulting in the black people being excluded wherever those people have power. You can't really do both.

    Same goes for every other minority group. If we're really going to be pluralistic - than necessarily entails suppressing the people who really, really, don't want to be pluralistic towards some groups. Tolerating people who don't want to accept gays means standing by while they act like assholes towards gays. You have to choose which group of people you want to feel socially accepted.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Excellent point, Meade.

  • Sam Haysom||

    No it isn't. It's just reheated half-digested Marcuse. In other words Cultural Marxism. Refusing to tolerate intolerance means you aren't tolerant period. It's the same logic that would say all speech is allowed except for speech that questions the divinity of Christ. Keep in mind this is precisely what Hobbes demanded from each citizen as a price for participation in the state an acknowledgment that Christ is Lord.

    Standing by while people act like assholes and deny the divinity of Christ is immoral. People that deny the divinity of Christ simply shouldn't be socially accepted. It really comes down to who do you think society should be accepting of decent god fearing Christians or sketchy socially marginal bitter atheist.

    And the bored, long winded housewifes of the 16th century would have clucked along with that reasoning just as smugly as Hazel does in her fetishization of minorities.

  • John||

    That is exactly right Sam. I am always amazed at how many self proclaimed Libertarians end up betraying their values by embracing cultural Marxism.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    I don't take people that use the phrase "cultural Marxism" seriously. It's just a dog whistle without a good definition.

  • John||

    In this case, it is very clear what he is talking about and what the phrase as he is using it means. So either you don't understand what he is saying or just don't like it. Either way, you are the person not worth taking seriously not Sam.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Awesome does that mean I won't have to wade through any of your inane responses. I mean she's making an argument made by a guy who identified himself as a cultural Marxist.

  • EscherEnigma||

    As a gay man, there's a real chance that sooner or later some asshole is going to kick me out of their store because their God has a beef with the gay people it created. So what am I supposed to do?

    I don't think it's unreasonable for me to never go back to that store. I mean really, I got kicked out once already. Going back would basically be rolling over and saying "please kick me on the other side, I need to even out the bruises".

    But you (and John) seem to think that by not going back to patronize someone who's made his views clear, I'm being a creepy (John's words) "cultural Marxist" (your words) who's doing bad things by letting a little thing like being refused service influence my economic decisions.

    And if I dare tell anyone why I don't go to the place that kicked me out? Well, then I'm trying to economically sabotage the guy, and that makes me even *worse*.

    So c'mon. What am I supposed to do here?

    And hint: If your answer is "shut up and take it" then you don't understand human behavior.

  • Sam Haysom||

    There are a lot of things you don't understand dear.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Sure. For one thing, I don't really understand brain surgery. Not my field.
    For another, how that's supposed to be a useful answer. In the scenario presented, what reasonable course of action do I have that passes your moral and ethical standards?

  • Longtobefree||

    "People that deny the divinity of Christ simply shouldn't be socially accepted."
    Jesus would disagree with you.
    Mark 2:15-17
    Luke 8:36-39
    Matthew 26:69-75 in light of Matthew 16:16
    etc

  • Azathoth!!||

    I don't think either of you know what 'pluralism' actually means.

  • John||

    It comes down to which do you judge to be the bigger problem, various groups rejecting each other or the government to abuse its power to limit pluralism to enforce conformity and crush various disfavored groups. You don't see the risk being created by granting the government the power to limit pluralism because you seem to think that it will forever just be used to crush "racists" and various other people you hate. I am not as seguin about government power. And I think generally people if left alone will work things out amongst themselves or if they can't government coercion accomplishes nothing except allowing whichever group has more political power to use the power of government to crush the other. So I will take my chances with rampant pluralism thank you.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    What Hazel said does not imply we should use the government to solve this problem.

  • John||

    Yes it does. How else do you "solve the problem"? Hazel doesn't like racists. Good for her. But I doubt the racists give a shit what Hazel thinks. Either they have a right to be racist and do business as racists or they don't. And if they do, then you have to assume they will exist and you will have to just get over it and live with it.

    Generally Hazel doesn't have a point beyond virtue signaling. So, it may be that she really is just virtue signaling here and isn't bright enough to see the implications of what she is saying. Who knows. But the bottom line is you either believe people have a right to act as they wish or you don't. And if you do, people being meanies and acting in ways you don't like really isn't a "problem" to be discussed in the political context.

  • ||

    They don't have a right to do business as racists, and not experience any sort of social consequences for that behavior. Everyone else is entirely entitled to boycott them or call them names or whatever.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Cool that is exactly the state of affairs today. In fact the state of affairs actually goes further than that in protecting people. So you are just virtue signalling I guess.

  • John||

    No one said they did. You are free to get your virtue signaling on and they are free to not care. I doubt that will work out well for either of you. But that is beside the point.

  • ||

    It's not virtue signalling, John. It's a positive effort to make sure that people of other races actually feel welcome in America.

    Now, I know you would love to live in an America where everyone is straight, white, and Christian and everyone else feels like second class citizens. And you're free to try to create social norms that enforce that social paradigm. And I hope you lose, badly.

  • John||

    No its is not a positive effort. It is a negative effort aimed at coercing people into giving up beliefs you don't like. That is all it is. Your claim that it is a "positive" effort is nothing but a rationalization.

  • ||

    I'm not talking about vibes, John.

    I mean "positive" in the sense of "taking action to make something happen", as opposed to "negative" in the sense of "passive inaction".

    And people are free to keep the beliefs I don't like, they just won't be welcome at my parties or be recipients of my business.

    You can be as bigoted as you want if you're willing to put up with being a social pariah.

  • John||

    Good for you Hazel. And you won't be welcome at theirs. But understand, you both have an absolute right to think as you do.

  • ||

    I never said they didn't.

  • John||

    Yes you did. You have said repeatedly that businesses should not have a right to refuse service to preferred groups. You most certainly do not think they have the same rights you do. You can refuse to go to their business or refuse service to them, but they cannot in your view act the same towards you.

    You want a system where those who hold unacceptable views are prohibited from expressing them in the same way you can express your "acceptable views". It is really disgusting to be honest.

  • ||

    No, I said that businesses that refuse service to people because of their race or whatever, should be subjected to boycotts along with other social consequences.

    And they can do the same to me, and we can both try to persuade the majority to go along with us, and this is how society evolves new standards of what is acceptable in polite society.

  • Azathoth!!||

    No, I said that businesses that refuse service to people because of their race or whatever, should be subjected to boycotts along with other social consequences.

    "Or whatever"?

    So should businesses that refuse service to people because of their incorrect beliefs be subjected to boycotts along with other social consequences?

    That's a 'whatever'.

    Who gets to decide what should be subjected to boycotts along with other social consequences?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    You better grab a torch. You're surrounded by straw men.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Exactly I mean what she is describing (to my mind duplicitously I think she would love aggressive jackbootery used against "yukky" people) is already the state of affairs. This would be like if I was constantly saying you know what black people should be allowed to vote.

  • ||

    I wouldn't be bothering to make this point if it didn't appear there was a significant number of people who were trying pretty hard to reverse modern social norms about racism and other kinds of bigotry.
    The alt-right exposed the fact that there are still a lot of people out there who really do want to make everyone but straight white Christians feel unwelcome in America.

  • damikesc||

    I wouldn't be bothering to make this point if it didn't appear there was a significant number of people who were trying pretty hard to reverse modern social norms about racism and other kinds of bigotry.
    The alt-right exposed the fact that there are still a lot of people out there who really do want to make everyone but straight white Christians feel unwelcome in America.

    And the "white privilege" and "I bathe in male tears" people are doing a lot to make others feel welcome, no?

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Your efforts at trying to paint white Christians as a victim class are very progressive.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    That was meant for Sam, not damikesc.

  • John||

    No Chipper,

    Your efforts to deny that anyone, white Christian or otherwise, can be a victim of discrimination is very progressive. A lot of people hate white Christians and are happy to fuck with them. Why do you have a problem admitting that? The only reason I can see is that you buy into the Marxist idea that some people by virtue of being members of "oppressive" classes can never be the victims of discrimination. Sorry, but I am not a Marxist.

  • ||

    White Christians don't bother me as long as they aren't being dicks to non-whites and/or non-Christians, or gays. There are lots of Christians out there who pretty much say that Christianity entails universal love for everyone. And not just "love the sinner, hate the sin" types, but Christians who think gays should be allowed to marry.

    Of course, i think all religion is bullshit, but I have no problem with those sorts of Christians.

  • John||

    Yes Hazel, everything is okay as long as people believe in ways you find acceptable. You are totally unable to tolerate any views beyond a very narrow range of things. We know that.

  • Sam Haysom||

    We get it chipper minority supremacism.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    I am just pointing out that you guys (John and Sam) are engaging in the same behavior as the people you are criticizing.

  • ||

    I don't think the government should be involved at all.
    I think we should have social norms which say that if you express racist, or otherwise bigoted beliefs, people are going to call you racist and bigoted and you will be socially excluded.

    Now, that can obviously go too far at times, and a careful distinction needs to be made between accidental injury and intentional insult, but there are clearly some categories of behavior that are intentional insults - i.e. like refusing to serve someone because of their race. There are actually categories of speech and behavior which , while legal, ought to result in some significant social consequences. There's an enormous difference between saying speech should be legal and saying that it should be socially acceptable. There is a role for some sort of "political correctness" in society, and it is not equivalent to censorship. It's just having standards that create an society where the circle of inclusion is as large as possible.

  • Sam Haysom||

    For this most of this nations history no circle would have been more inclusive than one that protected Christianity from assholes. Would have have supported in fact do you support kid gloves treatment for Christianity?

    We get it you are a bored housewife that likes to cluck and virtue signal. I guess it's just kind of hilarious that you are the direct descendent of temperance union church ladies.

  • ||

    You don't understand what either the word inclusion or pluralism actually means.

    Here's a hint: "Pluralism" =/= "only Christians are accepted"

  • Sam Haysom||

    Again you've already established that pluralism requires exclusion. You want to exclude the deplorables. Once you start excluding then you open the flood gates. You get that right. I can't emphasize how unsure I am of just how little about these issues you understand.

  • ||

    No, there's an optimal configuration in which the circle of inclusion is as large as possible. It probably involves some level of exclusion of people who are really resistant to including others.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Interesting idea, Hazel. Except I don't see how to implement such a standard without a top-down approach by a coercive entity.

  • ||

    Informal non-coercive social evolution is hard. Never said it wasn't. This is one of the nastiest thorniest problems in the whole of libertarian philosophy, IMO. Can we have private enforcement of informal social rules which shape a libertarian society, and if so, what should those private informal rules be? Or in the absence of government do we devolve into tribal warfare because human beings just can't help being racist and forming in-groups and out-groups? Is it possible to have a liberal social order in the absence of government? (You will note that I'm searching for a "yes" answer to that one.)

  • John||

    I think we should have social norms which say that if you express racist, or otherwise bigoted beliefs, people are going to call you racist and bigoted and you will be socially excluded.

    Good for you. Others disagree. Good luck wasting your life fighting with them while normal people don't give a shit. And one of these days it is going to occur to you that your idea of this conformist society where all these social norms are enforced by right thinking virtue signalers like yourself isn't going to work out the way you hope. Why you think people once they realize they have the power to stomp out whatever bad thought they want to will stop with the ones you don't like is quite a mystery. I humbly suggest you try minding your own fucking business and leaving people alone. Trust me, it will work out better for everyone.

  • ||

    Again, it's not about virtue signalling. It's about actually making non-white (non-Christian, non-straight) people feel welcome as equal members of society.
    I know you hate that. Because to you "normal people" = "straight white Christians".

  • John||

    No. It is about coercing through social pressure other people to accept things they don't want to accept. You believe in freedom as long as everyone believes and acts in ways you find acceptable. You can't seem to grasp the idea that freedom means the freedom to be whatever the hell you want to be. Maybe some people don't like gays. So what? They have a right to dislike gays just like you have a right to like them. Neither side has any moral claim over the other. You can't seem to understand that and think that you have some moral right to coerce people into thinking and acting as you think they should. Well, you don't and need to learn that.

  • ||

    It is about coercing through social pressure other people to accept things they don't want to accept.

    See there you go again. Boycotting = arson. Speech in response to speech = censorship.

    Yes, we do want to coerce people into accepting things they would rather not accept. Because I care more about the people they don't want to accept feeling included in American society, than I care about the people who don't want to accept them feeling included. You have to choose.
    Why is it that to you not accepting anti-Gay Christians is WORSE than not accepting gays?

  • John||

    Yes, we do want to coerce people into accepting things they would rather not accept. Because I care more about the people they don't want to accept feeling included in American society,

    Fuck you. They don't have to accept anything they don't want to and the fact that you think they do shows you really don't believe in freedom. Moreover, you don't believe in pluralism for the reasons that Sam Haysom states. You want a conformist culture where everyone believes in exactly the same things and preferred groups get a veto over acceptable beliefs. You are a totalitarian Hazel. You are just not bright enough or honest enough to realize it.

  • ||

    And you want a conformist culture where everyone is a straight white Christian and straight white Christians get a veto over whether non-straight-white-Christians are tolerated or not.
    You think that straight white Christians should get to be assholes to whoever they want and nobody should be able to say or do anything about it.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Basically Hazel believes minorities have a special reserved right to comfort and welcome. This isn't really about pluralism it's about minority supremacism:

  • damikesc||

    Basically Hazel believes minorities have a special reserved right to comfort and welcome. This isn't really about pluralism it's about minority supremacism:

    Disagree. It's about minority infantilizing. Meade doesn't feel that minorities are able to handle hearing rude words and, thus, Hazel needs to protect them,

    Because, those poor dears, they just aren't quite as good at living as Hazel.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Frankly damiskec I think you are naive the soft bigotry of low expectations also struck me as extremely facile. Low expectations are awesome when it means that those low expectations allow you to bully the majority into silence and extract inumerable goodies. If your boss works you twice as hard because he expects more of you, but your chance of getting the promotion is in fact less than the other person believe me you would be pissed not feel sorry for the other guy.

  • ||

    John doesn't think that racists are able to handle being classed racists.
    Poor little racists, so MEAN to exclude them from polite society.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Again in order to do this you claim you have to exclude people. This immediately gives the majority the right to reciprocate in kind. In the absence of ethnic cleansing pluralism is inevitable you want to pick winners and losers in order to make you segment more comfortable. Pluralism says nothing about comfort. Like so many virtue signalers you subscribe to a perverse priviledges of minorities point of view. No one guarantees the majorotes comfort and you would rage with all your pitiful fury at any attempt of the majority to make themselves feel more comfortable via exclusion. So your right to exclude is a prerogative held only by minorities exercised of course by privileged leftists such as yourself natch.

  • ||

    It's not a "privilege" to be treated like an equal by other members of society.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Go back an read your original comment that unleashed the digital ass kicking you've just been put through. You want the state to jackboot assholes. I put up with assholes like you every day without calling on jackbooted enforcers.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Hazel, while logically, everything you say is correct, it puts us right back to where we start. If your society is going to allow a robust freedom of speech, ie, we're going to tolerate different points of view, then you're going to tolerate odious (or intolerant) points of view within the debate. This is where it's tempting to declare the state will be the final arbiter of which points of view shall be tolerated, and which won't.

    I really recommend you listen to Jordan Peterson's discussion on why freedom of speech is so important, and how the flux of different extremes allow the dialog to take place. If you simply declare an entire line of thought verboten, even if most right-thinking people agree it's intolerable, the whole system begins to break down.

    There is a role for some sort of "political correctness" in society, and it is not equivalent to censorship

    All societies have a kind of political correctness. Racism can be a form of "political correctness". If the majority believes in a certain line of moral or political thought, and anyone espousing an idea that's seen as offensive to that, they may be shouted down or censored. As Brendan O'neill said, there was a time when suggesting commoners were allowed to read the bible was offensive and "politically incorrect".

  • ||

    I think a careful distinction needs to be made between honest attempts at civil dialogue which happens to involve offensive or unpopular points of view, as opposed to actions or intentional insults. You can allow for people to express offensive opinions in a civil way without allowing them to deliberately inflict insult or injury upon the targets of their prejudice.

    For example, tolerating someone expressing anti-gay beliefs in a civil manner (and IMO rainbows dripping blood doesn't exactly count), doesn't mean you have to tolerate them refusing to service gays.

    Where the campus microaggression police go to far is that they treat innocent attempts at honest dialogue as if they were intentional attacks.

  • John||

    For example, tolerating someone expressing anti-gay beliefs in a civil manner (and IMO rainbows dripping blood doesn't exactly count), doesn't mean you have to tolerate them refusing to service gays.

    What is different about refusing service? I have a right to free speech and I have a right to free association. If I have a right to say "gays suck", then I have a right not to want them in my business. If you say I don't, then just admit you don't believe in the right to free association or really any form of economic rights.

    Sorry, Hazel but "I will let those I hate express their views but only in ways I find acceptable" doesn't get you off the hook or make you any less intolerant.

  • ||

    What is different about refusing service is that it is harmful to others. Tolerating someone refusing service means tacitly standing by while other people get treated like shit for no reason.

    For some reason you only seem to care about whether the bigot feels included and tolerated by society. You seem to not even rate the gay person's being socially excluded, because of their gayness, as if it mattered at all.

  • John||

    What is different about refusing service is that it is harmful to others.

    But you boycotting people you don't like and refusing service to people you don't like, it totally okay. Do you see the double standard here? People you don't like are not free to refuse to associate with people they find objectionable. You, however, are totally free to do so to show those bad people the error of their ways.

    For some reason you only seem to care about whether the bigot feels included and tolerated by society.

    I care about freedom. And freedom means the right to hold bad or wrong views. You can't understand that because you don't care about freedom. You only care about people being free to believe things and act in ways you like.

    If you are not willing to stand up for people who hold unpopular or objectionable views, you don't believe in freedom. It is really that simple. The fact you not only won't do that but attack me for doing so, shows exactly who you are. And it isn't anything good.

  • ||

    Freedom means the right to walk around with black skin on. Or to be gay.

    Honestly, you seem to think that the freedom to be a racist is more important than the freedom to just ... be a black person, in public. It's like the targets of bigotry are non-persons or unimportant to you - the people who are important, who matter to you, are the racists and bigots.

  • John||

    Freedom means the right to walk around with black skin on. Or to be gay.

    Sure it is. And it is also the freedom to walk around as a Nazi or a white supremacist or a black supremacist or a communist or anything else you choose to be. That part you don't get. All you do Hazel is twist the concept of "freedom" into a rationalization to coerce people into acting as you want them to. It is first rate newspeak. Freedom is slavery kind of thing.

  • ||

    The point is that the people who are Nazis and white supremacists aren't JUST walking around being themselves, if they are discriminating against black people, they are actively interfering with the ability of blacks of just walk around being themselves.

    Again, racism is harmful to others in a way that just walking around being black or gay isn't. The freedom to walk around being a racist without enduring any social consequences for it is the freedom to make walking around being a black person suck.

    Since black people can't change their skin color, but racists sure as fuck can keep their views to themselves, I would rather err on the side of making it OK to be black than to make it OK to be racist.

  • damikesc||

    Freedom means the right to walk around with black skin on.

    Blacks are being skinned alive in public?

    Or to be gay.

    They're being slaughtered here?

    Honestly, you seem to think that the freedom to be a racist is more important than the freedom to just ... be a black person, in public.

    Their importance is equal.

  • Tony||

    We're better than Iran! Winning!

  • ||

    Their importance is equal.

    I disagree. Walking around being a black person in no way harms the racist, but being a racist , particularly if it involves actively discriminating against blacks, actually does cause harm to the black person, especially if there are lots of racists around and they are able to act in concert.

    Therefore it is more optimal from a social liberty perspective to have rules that tolerate being black, but don't tolerate being a racist.

  • damikesc||

    What is different about refusing service is that it is harmful to others. Tolerating someone refusing service means tacitly standing by while other people get treated like shit for no reason.

    There isn't "no reason". You may not LIKE the reason, but it's not no reason whatsoever, And what about Masterpiece Cakes, who sells cakes to gays with no problem but doesn't want to be FORCED to design them a wedding cake? Who's intolerant there?

    For some reason you only seem to care about whether the bigot feels included and tolerated by society.

    Not remotely speaking for John, but if a Nazi is free to say what they want, then I feel far less concerned that I won't be. If they are forbidden, then all it means is my ability to speak is hardly guaranteed.

    You're aware popular speech does not need protections, right?

  • ||

    You might feel differently if what was at stake was not just your ability to speak (without social consequences), but your ability to walk around in public wearing the skin color you were born with (without social consequences).

    And once again, we're talking about speech vs. speech here. We're talking about what is socially acceptable and what will get you treated like a pariah.

    Personally, I think it's more important than black people get to walk around being black without getting harassed than it is that racists get to walk around being racist without getting harassed.
    You can't really do both, since letting racists just be racist means tacitly standing by while racists harass black people.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""allow""

    fuck off slaver

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You can allow for people to express offensive opinions in a civil way without allowing them to deliberately inflict insult or injury upon the targets of their prejudice.

    This is the argument justifying a ban on hate speech.

    Where the campus microaggression police go to far is that they treat innocent attempts at honest dialogue as if they were intentional attacks.

    And I argue that in their minds, they're perfectly fine with allowing opinions to be expressed in a civil way without allowing them to inflict insult or injury. They've simply defined insult and injury so far down, that declaring that you don't believe there's such a large gender pay gap is an act of violence.

    The reason we're seeing tiki torches in Charlottesville is because so much reasonable dialog has been shouted down or banned-- and there have been so many high-profile apologies and firings of people who merely questioned the dogma (and questioned it in an entirely reasonable and civil way). This ugly alt-right behavior is a reaction to that. When discourse-- even ugly discourse is shut down, people feel they're left with no other recourse than to be violent. And that's where we're heading.

  • John||

    Paul,

    Hazel's problem is that she thinks that we can somehow only ban what she considers "unreasonable speech". The idea that other people will use that power to ban more than that never occurs to her. It also never occurs to her that people have a right to say things and believe things Hazel doesn't like. Hazel does not believe in free speech. This thread has made that very obvious.

  • ||

    If you're equating speech in response to speech to censorship, then you've lost the argument. Again.

    John is incapable of distinguishing between government force and other people's criticism of your speech.

  • Tony||

    Liberal hypersensitivity made those people hate Jews?

  • John||

    Tony we are not talking about Muslims and the European left.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Liberal hypersensitivity made those people hate Jews?

    No, it brought them out of the woodwork.

  • ||

    By "allow" I mean socially tolerate. There should never be any government bans on anything.

    And obviously there's a constant negotiation of where exactly the line ought to be. I would probably agree with you that the campus left puts that line at a place that is WAY too restrictive - because it's easy and it permits the exclusion of a lot of opinions that aren't nearly as offensive as they want to claim.

    The reason we're seeing tiki torches in Charlottesville is because so much reasonable dialog has been shouted down or banned-

    That doesn't mean it's unnecessary to respond to the alt-right, or that we should take their side. We have to push back against both extremes. Resist the temptation to choose a side.

  • John||

    There should never be any government bans on anything.

    Then what do you want Hazel? You want boycotts and refusals of service and social shunning of people you don't' like. Okay, But above you go to great lengths to explain how people who hold objectionable views cannot refuse service to people they don't like. Yet, you think your side not only can but has an obligation to do the same thing to them.

    Basically, Hazel, you believe in coercion and oppression. You just prefer it be done by the mob instead of the police.

  • Tony||

    John, racism and homophobia are bad, mkay? As in objectively bad. Bigots may not think so, but they're wrong. Lots of blood and sweat has been spilled for society to come to this conclusion. But the only reason free expression is useful is so that eventually we get at the truth. And the truth is that treating people who were born in a way you don't approve of as less than fully human is monstrous, and only monsters believe that.

    We used to keep something of a lid on this until your president gave literal Nazis his endorsement.

  • John||

    Tony,

    You are a complete retard. mkay? Seriously, shouting "but racism is bad" is not a sensible response to anything anyone has said. You are a fucking moron who sees life as a cartoon morality play where the whole point is for you to feel good by punishing your enemies. It is pathetic and tiresome. No one cares anymore. Go away.

  • Tony||

    Stop spreading massively destructive ideas like "climate change is a hoax" and I'll stop considering you my enemy. I think it's acceptable to consider enemies those who want to harm you.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, a changing climate is obviously real. The bad math from your communist friends seeking to blame industry for it is bullshit. Just another way to sell your Marxism under false pretenses.

  • Sam Haysom||

    People thought Sodomy and atheism were objectively bad until like last Tuesday. Who fucking cares what you think is objectively bad.

  • Tony||

    You don't think it's ironic that it's you guys who are being relativists? There is no truth, only a billion equally valid opinions.

    Except taxes are theft and there is to be no debate on that point!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And Tony is a vicious bigot, and basically evil person.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, then why are ou such an intractable bigot?

  • ||

    Basically, Hazel, you believe in coercion and oppression. You just prefer it be done by the mob instead of the police.

    Throwing people out of your restaurant because they are black isn't coercion and oppression, but refusing to do business with racists IS?

  • GILMORE™||

    By "allow" I mean socially tolerate.

    you can doubly fuck off, slaver

    If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (1978, 16)


    Such liberty should exist with every subject matter so that we have "absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological" (1978, 11). Mill claims that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push our arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. Such liberty of expression is necessary, he suggests, for the dignity of persons. If liberty of expression is stifled, the price paid is "a sort of intellectual pacification" that sacrifices " the entire moral courage of the human mind" (1978, 31).

  • ||

    Gilmore, racists are totally free to express their opinions as much as they want, as long as they are willing to put up with being treated as social pariahs. If you want to tell me that me criticizing racist speech or telling racists to fuck off and get out of my place of business is WORSE than racists kicking black people of of their restaurant just for being black, you can just fuck off yourself, slaver.

  • Tony||

    What you are describing is etiquette. Bigotry is simply at the extreme end of bad manners, and so bigots ought to be dealt with by extreme ostracism, which is the sanction employed by the norms of etiquette to deal with rudeness. You don't outlaw it, as the behavior doesn't rise to the level of criminality, but it is nonetheless handled socially.

    The problem is when bigotry is the accepted norm. It's never OK, but it happens. But even then government only steps in to respond to actions that harm people, not to police thoughts. But you rightly point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using social pressure to change people's attitudes. It's the only way to make for a decent society rather than one that permits unchecked bigotry.

    John likes bigotry because he is a bigot and sees no reason to pressure people to change their minds about it. He's one of the ones who should be shunned in polite society until he figures out what his problem is.

  • John||

    No Tony. You are a disgusting hateful bigot. And you use the excuse to end "bigotry" as a rationalization for your hatred. You basically a horrible, hateful, intolerant person and everything you claim your enemies to be. But, hey you make up for it by being pig ignorant and having a low IQ. So there is that.

  • Tony||

    In contrast to your open-minded tolerance and almost ostentatious kindness to others, I'm sure.

  • John||

    Yes. I am an extremely open-minded person. And since you live in a world of rationalization and projection, you, of course, see me as the opposite.

  • Tony||

    Oh so you meant low-IQ pig ignorant, but in a nice way.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    As near as I can tell, John is a decent person, who goes out of his way to be civil. Even to a piece of shit like you, Tony. He is certainly more tolerant of you orogta4ded scum than I can claim credit. Personally, I hope you trash push hard enough that everyone else figures out what I already have. That there is no coexistence with progressives, and that you will force us to remove you out of necessity.

    I think you owe John an apology.

  • KDN||

    I am not as seguin about government power.

    If only you scored points like that guy then the small-government movement might get somewhere.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "And I think generally people if left alone will work things out amongst themselves [...]"
    ... really? 'cause any time anyone mentions the various methods for letting things working themsleves out (refusing to patronize buisnesses, telling others why, boycotts, etc.) you come down pretty harshly.

  • colorblindkid||

    I don't know if it makes me unlibertarian, but I've always been in favor of making English the national language. The ability for everybody to converse with everybody else at all times in their lives is essential to a cohesive society. Put immigrants in intensive English classes before entering regular school.

  • Tony||

    Wanting the government to force other people to do something you'd never tolerate it forcing you to do (become bilingual) is, I will go out on a limb here, unlibertarian.

  • colorblindkid||

    Immigrants who willingly come to the country fully knowing the requirements are not being imposed upon or forced to do anything. Children who do not speak English will simply be mandated to go to English school, no different than any other kids are mandated to go school. The government already forces people to do these things. This is no different.

  • Tony||

    If enough immigrants come this will be a de facto bilingual country. How about teaching all kids both languages?

    At any rate, Americans are outliers in the world with their inability to handle more than one language.

  • Rhywun||

    Yes, that is a great source of our relative stability.

  • Tony||

    Well in addition to our dementia-addled nuke-happy president.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, Hillary lost. We got Trump, who is neither of those things.

    You really are a stupid twat, aren't you?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If enough immigrants come this will be a de facto bilingual country. How about teaching all kids both languages?

    I take it you've identified a single group of immigrants.

  • ||

    Americans are outliers in the world with their inability to handle more than one language.

    This is retardedly untrue. There are plenty of Nations that have one Official Language with upwards of 90+% speakers and the US isn't one of them. The only way you get the US as an outlier is if you don't count dialects and native languages in the US but do count them (frequently the exact same language) in other places, start dividing things up by both language and fluency/proficiency, and/or exclude non-native Americans who speak multiple languages fluently.

    Americans are also outliers in our ability to co-opt ideas for which we have no vocabulary or even no vocabulary exists. I (don't really) wonder why you aren't opposed to forcing immigrants to stick with languages that actually hobble their creative and adaptive skills.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Yeah, that is spectacularly wrong.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Yeah, Reason is increasingly on the progtard bandwagon about how horrible and stupid Americans are, compared to how wonderful foreigners and foreign countries are.

    Yet hundreds of millions of them would rather come here.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Better yet Tony, don't let so many in so we don't have to do that. When they come here, they adapt to us, not the other way around.

  • John||

    Nothing ensures staying at the bottom of the economic ladder more than not knowing English. Since you are a nasty bigoted fuck, it totally unsurprising you would object to the government expecting immigrants to learn English. My God, they might go somewhere and be something besides the slave labor you so value.

    God, you are gross.

  • Tony||

    He asked if it was libertarian for the government to force people to learn a new language. As you rightly point out, the market can probably handle this one.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Yet you are against the market at every turn. 7nless you think you can twist it around to the advantage of your progtarded agenda.

    Fuck off Tony.

  • ||

    do something you'd never tolerate it forcing you to do (become bilingual)

    Huh? My HS had all kinds of shitty electives that I tolerated, language was one of them.

    If you're going to take natives' money (and possibly the immigrants' once they get here) to compel the education of both native an immigrant youths, one consistent language would be the most effective and efficient way to do it.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    So when was America a cohesive society?

  • John||

    Outside of the civil war, pretty much it's entire history. You only think it wasn't cohesive because you have grown up fat dumb and happy in America and don't know what an incohesive society looks like.

  • Longtobefree||

    Read much about "reconstruction" lately?
    Exactly how cohesive were the race riots?
    Were any deaths reported as the labor movement began?
    How cohesive were the Irish and 'everybody else'?
    Did the Mormons flee a cohesive society?
    Were men and women all that cohesive in the seventies, and on campus now?
    You might call the country cohesive in the early days when individual settlements were so spread out that there were no conflicts, and each village was pretty cohesive because it was founded by a group of like minded settlers, but as soon as we filled up a bit, lots and lots of other than cohesive things started to happen.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Suppose Ben Borgman had been a printer instead of a coffee shop owner, and the Christian group had asked him to print its bloody flyers. Should the government have made him do it?"
    Hands On Originals. T-shirt printer that refused to print tshirts for a gay pride group because it found a rainbow-colored five to be offensive. The printer won.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Diversity Is Not Enough. We Need Pluralism
    In a pluralistic society, power is dispersed, and mutual consent is the order of the day

    Pluralism is not a good idea.
    We all need just one idea if we are to progress to a true proletariat paradise like Cuba or North Korea.
    Pluralism only encourages the asinine idea of freedom and independence, and we all know what that leads to.

  • Longtobefree||

    "and mutual consent is the order of the day"

    How so?
    In metaphysics, pluralism is a doctrine that there is more than one reality,
    In ontology, pluralism refers to different ways, kinds, or modes of being.
    In epistemology, pluralism is the position that there is not one consistent means of approaching truths about the world, but rather many
    In logic, pluralism is the view that there is no one correct logic, or alternatively, that there is more than one correct logic

    Not seeing all that mutual consent in any of this.

  • Freelancelot||

    This is a mostly outstanding piece.

    But, when you write bullshit like this: "....compulsory patriotic rituals preceding sporting events that mimic wars between nation-states...." you diminish your argument, yourself, and "Reason" (which looks more and more like a Democrass rag than it does a libertarian think-mag).

  • Longtobefree||

    What is now called 'diversity', is the very definition of racism and sexism.
    It requires that the color of skin, and biological sex, and sexual orientation, be called out as identifying characteristics, and that government policy not be applied evenly, but applied with race and sex and orientation as significant factors in that application.
    Reads more like bigotry to me.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It is truly bizarre that the people who currently claim the mantle of Dr King have completely inverted his vision to the point where it is only the characteristics one has no control over that matter.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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