Press Release
RALEIGH (April 26) – The Libertarian Party of North Carolina has joined the growing list of organizations calling for the repeal of House Bill 2.
“The state has no authority to determine gender,” the unanimous resolution states. HB 2 also “unduly intrudes state authority into local decision-making and unreasonably limits the ability of the citizens … to govern themselves.”
In addition, the bill reduces individual rights because it “bans citizens from using state courts to remedy discrimination”
Nic Haag, Libertarian candidate for NC Senate 44, introduced the resolution. It was endorsed by General Assembly candidates Brad Hessel, NC Senate 15, Brian Irving, NC House 36, and Rob Rose, NC 37.
The convention was held in Raleigh last weekend.
The convention also passed a resolution calling for the repeal of the ban on counting write-in votes. The state does not count the votes for persons who haven’t gathered enough petition signatures.
This “amounts to the legislature picking and choosing which votes to count, sometimes yielding suspicious results like unanimous vote tallies in our statewide elections,” the resolutions says.
Six candidates for the Libertarian presidential nomination participated in a forum Saturday. They included former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, the party’s 2012 standard-bearer.
In other business, the convention elected at-large members to the state executive committee and adopted a revised platform. It also selected delegates to the Libertarian National Convention and nominated presidential electors.
.
“You … continue to assert the nonsensical idea that they must either praise the law in its entirety or condemn it in its entirety.”
Tsk, tsk, langa. It’s not nice to lie about people. I can’t “continue” to assert something I never asserted in the first place.
You let the shock of you being so wrong — it’s not a common thing — die down for a few days. I figured you had gone away to get right, or at least to live down the embarrassment of being so wrong. Sorry you fell off that wagon.
…neither is there a legitimate power for government to demand that one get one’s crotch checked by a bureaucop before using said public restrooms.
Where did I ever say there was? You continue to act as if I have advised the LP NC to offer a blanket endorsement of all the aspects of HB 2, while I have actually done just the opposite. I have strongly encouraged them to criticize the portion of HB 2 to which you refer, while also pointing out the positive aspect of the law: its restoration of private property rights.
You, for some reason, seem unable to grasp this, and continue to assert the nonsensical idea that they must either praise the law in its entirety or condemn it in its entirety. That’s why I drew the analogy to the Fifth Amendment (which you have continued to avoid). Can’t we libertarians criticize the 5A’s authorization of eminent domain, while simultaneously praising its other protections of due process? If so, why can’t the NC LP do the same with HB 2?
Transgender people don’t have a choice to take their business elsewhere when it comes to government “services.” In fact, when it comes to certain government “services” such as involuntary confinement in mental health facilities, courts, schools and jails, they don’t have a choice at all; they are forced to be there by physical force or the threat thereof. Therefore government policies that violate their personal liberty and safety in a very fundamental way, and may constitute a real danger to their lives, don’t just become non-problems because in some distant libertarian utopia these “services” may no longer be monopolized by force.
I never said it isn’t a problem. I said it isn’t a problem that libertarianism has a simple solution to — other than saying that public property shouldn’t exist.
Meanwhile, libertarians are free to offer their opinions about how government should manage “its” property. I have no problem with that, and I have (on this very thread) encouraged the NC LP to do just that. The only thing I have a problem with is their decision to remain conspicuously silent about the Charlotte law and its abrogation of private property rights, while railing against HB 2, which (whatever its other faults) did at least restore those private property rights. The combination of these two decisions (to loudly criticize HB 2, while remaining totally silent about 7056) clearly constitutes an implicit endorsement of 7056 and thus, a repudiation of private property rights.
It’s ironic that you talk about hand waving, because that has been the only response to my repeated question: Why not criticize the bad aspects of both laws? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why they couldn’t have done so, except for one: Their intense desire to walk on eggshells, for fear of saying anything that could be construed as “insensitive” or “offensive” to the LGBT community. While trying to avoid “hurt feelings” might be admirable in some contexts, when doing so comes at the expense of delivering the loudest and clearest possible statement of libertarian principles, it is simply inexcusable.
https://youtu.be/-Fjf2NS7V3A
langa,
“There is no ‘right’ for anyone to use a publicly owned bathroom, because there is no right for publicly owned bathrooms to even exist.”
Correct.
But by that same correct logic, neither is there a legitimate power for government to demand that one get one’s crotch checked by a bureaucop before using said public restrooms.
I know from experience how hard it is to back down when one is wrong, when one has been shown to be wrong, and when one knows damn well that one was wrong, langa, but there’s really no way around it. Your first step to getting out of that hole is to STOP DIGGING.
Seems simple enough to me. Transgender people don’t have a choice to take their business elsewhere when it comes to government “services.” In fact, when it comes to certain government “services” such as involuntary confinement in mental health facilities, courts, schools and jails, they don’t have a choice at all; they are forced to be there by physical force or the threat thereof. Therefore government policies that violate their personal liberty and safety in a very fundamental way, and may constitute a real danger to their lives, don’t just become non-problems because in some distant libertarian utopia these “services” may no longer be monopolized by force.
Actually, even many moderate libertarians support keeping some of these “services” such as courts and jails monopolized by government. But regardless, they are monopolized by government now. If they pass a policy saying, say, that redheads will receive a hundred lashes with a rattan cane upon entering or exiting one of these buildings, do we hand waive about how there just shouldn’t be any government buildings anyway?
Again, the Charlotte law authorized aggression, and violated property rights. HB 2 did neither of those things. There is no “right” for anyone to use a publicly owned bathroom, because there is no right for publicly owned bathrooms to even exist. To argue otherwise would be like arguing that government offices being closed on Sunday violates the rights of people who work Monday-Saturday. It greatly inconveniences them, but it doesn’t violate their rights, because there is no right to begin with.
Now, if you want to argue that forcing people to go into government-owned buildings (e.g. to buy a license plate for their car, or whatever) constitutes aggression, that’s true. But it’s equally true, regardless of which days the building is open, what bathroom policy it has, or whether it even has a bathroom. The bottom line, as I said above, is that libertarianism is based on property rights. 7056 clearly violated them, while HB 2 did not. Thus, HB 2, while not perfect, wasn’t nearly as bad as 7056.
“You also failed to address the analogies. If libertarians are to oppose any law that isn’t perfect, as you seem to be implying”
HB 2 isn’t just “not perfect.” HB 2 is egregious and awful. And no, HB 2 is not better than the local Charlotte ordinance, it is just bad in a different way.
The local Charlotte ordinance forbade both government and private property owners to check people’s genitalia and control which bathrooms they use. One good thing (the prohibition on government discrimination), one bad thing (the prohibition on private discrimination). It did so in one city.
HB 2 did “allow” private genitalia-checking for the purpose of bathroom control (which was already legal everywhere in North Carolina except Charlotte). But it also imposed a statewide REQUIREMENT for genitalia-checking by government entities. Again, one good thing, one bad thing — the bad thing affecting all 10 million citizens of North Carolina, not just the 800k citizens of Charlotte.
I’m gonna go with Knapp on this one. A long and self-contradicting press release would have gone nowhere.
I like decentralism, and that includes letting state parties figure out in cases of messy conflicts between state and local legislation, both of which have both good and bad points, where they would get the most mileage out of coming down on. The state party is better capable of figuring out its particular political milieu better than anyone from another state.
But resolutions and press releases should have ONE topic, not TWO topics, and they shouldn’t argue against themselves.
Given that these two laws are inextricably linked (the primary purpose of one being to overturn the other), this argument amounts to little more than semantics.
The North Carolina LP wanted to argue against HB2.
Given that HB 2 was indisputably closer to the libertarian position than the law it supplanted, the question is, “Why?”
Two of the internal features there to condemn were the pee-pee checking nonsense, and the state legislature overriding or pre-empting local governance. The latter is neither a libertarian or an anti-libertarian value; it’s one of those “decentralization makes better government” consequentialist nostrums that I’m not a big fan of.
Actually, decentralization is a libertarian value, but only when properly understood. The idea is that in any situation, decisions should be made at the lowest level possible, ideally all the way down to the individual level. Thus, HB 2 was an example of the good kind of decentralization, as it restored the right of private property owners to make decisions about their property, while 7056 had allowed a higher level (the local government) to arrogate that right.
Adding a discussion of the content of the Charlotte bill would have lengthened the resolution, lengthened the press release, and caused the resolution and press release to argue against themselves, pitting “local control” versus “bad local law” and distracting from the ACTUAL TOPIC.
If worded correctly, it would have done none of those things. It should have said something along the lines of, “Libertarians believe that decisions about how property is to be used should be made by private property owners, or in the case of public property, by the lowest level of government possible. Thus, we condemn both HB 2 and the local Charlotte law that it replaces. The local Charlotte law allows the government to usurp the rights of private property owners. HB 2, while correcting that tyrannical measure, imposes its own form of tyranny, by usurping the rights of the local Charlotte government to regulate its own buildings. We therefore call for both laws to be repealed, and for both state and local governments to resist the urge to regulate property that does not belong to them.”
You also failed to address the analogies. If libertarians are to oppose any law that isn’t perfect, as you seem to be implying, should we call for repealing the Fifth Amendment, or more generally, for repealing any law that contains any aspect that could conceivably be interpreted as non-libertarian?
langa,
The North Carolina LP passed and then promulgated a resolution against a state law, HB2.
Might it be appropriate for the North Carolina LP — or, better, the Mecklenburg County LP, perhaps with the LPNC applauding — to have separately passed and promulgated, or to in the future pass and promulgate, a resolution and press release opposing Charlotte’s “anti-discrimination ordinance?”
Sure.
But resolutions and press releases should have ONE topic, not TWO topics, and they shouldn’t argue against themselves.
The North Carolina LP wanted to argue against HB2. Two of the internal features there to condemn were the pee-pee checking nonsense, and the state legislature overriding or pre-empting local governance. The latter is neither a libertarian or an anti-libertarian value; it’s one of those “decentralization makes better government” consequentialist nostrums that I’m not a big fan of.
Adding a discussion of the content of the Charlotte bill would have lengthened the resolution, lengthened the press release, and caused the resolution and press release to argue against themselves, pitting “local control” versus “bad local law” and distracting from the ACTUAL TOPIC.
I have not heard from anyone that the LPNC supported the Charlotte bill, nor can any such support be plausibly inferred from the press release. There’s just no “there” to your complaint.
Andy, as I have said before, I think that libertarians should strongly oppose the sorts of government subsidies that you are talking about. However, it does not follow that as long as those subsidies are in place, that we should therefore act as if the government is the rightful owner of those businesses. That just takes us farther away from libertarianism, and closer to communism.
TK (and anyone else who agrees with the first two statements, but not the third):
I think the problem here is not a lack of “libertarian-ness” (if that’s even a word), but a lack of logic. Perhaps a couple of hypothetical scenarios would help cure your tunnel vision:
In addition to its good points, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (at least arguably) authorizes the taking of private property via eminent domain. So, if the national LP were to issue a press release that simply said, “Being opposed to the principle of eminent domain, we call for the repeal of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” without making any comment about the due process guarantees found therein, would you support such a press release, and defend the repeal of the Fifth Amendment as a libertarian position?
Or, to take an even more similar example, imagine that in a state with legal weed (say, Colorado), some county passed a local law making possession of any amount of marijuana, no matter how miniscule it might be, punishable by a mandatory life sentence, even for a first offense. The state government then, with a tip of the hat to Bob Barr, passes the Defense of Marijuana Act, overturning the local law. However, the state law also contains a provision saying that smoking weed on “public property” is punishable by a small fine (say, $20). The Colorado LP then issues a press release saying, “We support the right of Colorado citizens to smoke marijuana on public property, and therefore, we call for the repeal of the Defense of Marijuana Act.” Again, would you defend this press release, and claim that it constituted a libertarian position?
“If you want to take things that far to the point of being ridiculous, everyone is subsidized by the state to one degree or another, since we all use the roads, etc…”
Yep. So knock off the bullshit about anyone who’s subsidized losing their property and association rights.
If you want to take things that far to the point of being ridiculous, everyone is subsidized by the state to one degree or another, since we all use the roads, etc…
Only if you don’t think deeply enough about some of the ways in which they are.
Should read, “subsidized” above.
There are plenty of small businesses in this country that are not subsidized or part owned by the state.
“fixed economy”
I meant mixed economy. But I guess you could also call it a fixed economy, not as in repaired, but as in “the fix is in.”
What business isn’t government subsidized? Is there one that has no use for government roads, or for workers who received some of their education in schools that are in some way operated or subsidized by some level of government? One that has never, and would never rely on government courts?
Like it or not we live in a fixed economy. If you want purity, you’ll need to figure out a way to go live as a hermit. We don’t have to like it, we don’t have to accept it as permanent, but we do have to live with it until and unless we can change it. It’s an imperfect world; that’s just reality.
“Which of those 3 statements do you disagree with?”
#3.
langa, I agree with your overall point, but what about corporate properties that are subsidized by the government, or that are part owned by government (like Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Kroger, Safeway, etc…, and like many malls and shopping centers)?
Places that are subsided or part owned by government should serve the public.
” To call for the repeal of HB 2, while saying nothing whatsoever about 7056, clearly constitutes an endorsement of the aggression that 7056 authorized,”
You keep saying that, but it still isn’t true.
TK, you’re a smart guy who’s obviously trying to “play dumb” in this case, so let me spell it out for you:
1. The local Charlotte law (7056) clearly and unambiguously authorizes aggression against private property owners.
2. HB 2 (in addition to doing some other things*) clearly and unambiguously protects those same private property owners from the aggression that was authorized by 7056.
3. To call for the repeal of HB 2, while saying nothing whatsoever about 7056, clearly constitutes an endorsement of the aggression that 7056 authorized, and HB 2 sought to prevent.
Which of those 3 statements do you disagree with?
(*The question of how the NAP should be applied to “public” property is a messy one, since according to the NAP, there should be no “public” property. It’s somewhat akin to asking, “According to the NAP, is it better to beat your slaves once a day for an hour, or twice a day for 30 minutes at a time?” The NAP has no answers to these sorts of questions, other than to point their inherent absurdity. Of course, individual libertarians have their own personal opinions about many subjects, and personally, if I ran a business, I would not have “bathroom monitors” checking genitalia — but, of course, that would be my decision to make, because it’s my property. If, on the other hand, there is a town where 95% of the population would prefer these “bathroom monitors” to be present in government buildings, then it’s not apparent to me why that situation, ceteris paribus, is more of an NAP violation than the existence of a government building without such monitors. Sure, it is a major inconvenience for some people, but so are many other things that libertarians don’t get up in arms about — like, for example, government offices, courthouses, etc. being closed on Sunday. That’s certainly a major inconvenience for anyone who works the other six days of the week. The fact is that, as I mentioned way up the thread, the very existence of “public” property makes conflicts and rights violations inevitable. To take another example, some people want to shut down Main Street to stage a political protest, while others want to use it to get to work. What’s the “libertarian” solution to that? Bottom line: The NAP is premised on property rights as the deciding factor in such cases. Thus, in cases involving “public” property, the NAP doesn’t have much useful to say. So, to oppose a law that clearly protects private property rights, just because you don’t like what it does on “public” property, is pretty obviously a non-libertarian position. Of course, you’re free to hold that position — just don’t pretend that it’s based on the NAP, because it’s not. The libertarian position in this case is what I said in the last two paragraphs of this comment: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/nc-libertarians-say-repeal-hb-2/#comment-1354915)
langa,
Like all libertarians, I opposed the Charlotte “even private businesses must run their bathrooms they way WE want them to” ordinance.
And, like all libertarians, I oppose the state “we are going to have monitors standing in front of restrooms on ‘public’ property to check genitalia” law.
I’m not seeing any daylight between those two libertarian positions and the North Carolina press release. One COULD read some deviation into it vis a vis the objections to taking away local control, or the objection to having laws against discrimination but simultaneously closing off appeal to those laws for a particular group, but those deviations would indeed have to be read in. They’re certainly not overtly present.
So apparently SOMEONE thinks the culture war is important enough to condemn libertarianism over. But it’s neither me or the LPNC.
Apparently it worked, since I can’t find any blatantly non-libertarian press release from the LPNC anywhere.
Interesting. I thought you were one of the few people in the LP who actually understands — and cares — about basic libertarian principles. Apparently I was wrong, and you are just another left-authoritarian who is more than happy to throw libertarian principles under the bus, as long as it helps you win the idiotic culture war.
“sweep the LPNC’s blatantly non-libertarian press release under the rug.”
Apparently it worked, since I can’t find any blatantly non-libertarian press release from the LPNC anywhere.
langa – I can appreciate your dedication to Libertarian Party ” original principles ” ( my term for lack of a better phrase ) but my observance is that ” that train has left the station ” and it won’t be back.
You can wish for an adherence to such principles and the LP can flap its corporate jaws about them but under the iron control of the Plantation Masters the LP now has a new ” Prime Directive ” which is to be part the Plantation Masters arsenal in their war against Christianity.
Just as Code Pink will screech about ” womens rights ” and then not issue a peep when Christian women are raped; because when their Christian enemies are being raped they will not complain but celebrate; so will the LP talk about the value of individual rights and then instantly abandon the idea when they get an opportunity to hammer Christians for their Plantation Master Controllers.
Such an obvious hypocrisy is of no care to the singular Libertarians ( oodles of whom infest this site ) who share their Plantation Masters religious belief(s) – Christianity is enemy #1 and the TRUE purpose of the, perhaps reformulated, LP is to aid the victory of Humanism/Satanism over it.
It seems to me that all this crap about Jim vs. Jill, Jim vs. Paulie, Jim vs. Warren, and blah, blah, blah, is just another in the long line of attempts to derail this thread from its original topic, and therefore, sweep the LPNC’s blatantly non-libertarian press release under the rug.
First, the defenders of the LPNC tried to change the subject to whether or not Lew Rockwell is a racist (which, of course, has nothing to do with whether the LPNC’s position is correct from a libertarian standpoint). When that didn’t work, they tried to make a lame defense of the LPNC’s statement, which I easily countered: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/nc-libertarians-say-repeal-hb-2/#comment-1355987 — and, as far as I can tell, no one has responded to. Finally, in a last-ditch effort to save face, they have tried to FUBAR the thread with all this stuff about whether or not Jim is a troll (which, again, is totally irrelevant to the original subject of this thread).
So, I am still waiting for someone to forget all these red herrings and explain to me why the LPNC should be given a pass for issuing a press release that opposes the protection of private property rights.
I’ve never found them to be difficult to counter, nor in most cases worth the effort. As for your website policy, take it up with your fellow site editors. Personally I don’t care. I’ll stop by here if and when I think the conversation is worthwhile and I have time, and will move on whenever I get tired of it or too busy. There are plenty of other websites to argue politics on, so whatever policies you all come up with are fine with me. If I don’t like them or the results they produce I’ll just go somewhere else. That’s easy enough to do.
A website is not like a bar because on a website you can easily choose not to listen to someone you find obnoxious and no one participating is in physical danger. I’m not sure what’s so obnoxious about discussing topics on an article related to that topic. He was doing that on here until Jill brought up the e-mail to Warren for no apparent reason. Do you have any evidence of obnoxiousness or were his arguments just too difficult to counter?
As I understand it, the explanation above was that Mr. Bell’s ban was based on the aggressive manner in which he conducts his arguments and the sense of the editors as a group that he makes IPR comments an unpleasant place to be. Kind of how a particularly obnoxious, persistent loudmouth drunk may be asked to leave a bar because the management as a group is tired of his antics. The content of his rants per se was not the reason for the ban, again as I understand it, although his lawsuit threats were a contributing factor.
However, truth is a defense against charges of libel, and Mr. Bell has made statements that individuals should be judged collectively on the basis of race, which is one of the definitions of racism. In other words if he makes statements regarding racial statistics providing a good justification to discriminate against people, and then gets called a racist, it can’t possibly be libel, since it’s actually true. As for Mr. Jacobs, if there has been any discussion of banning him, I haven’t been made aware of it. I could ask someone on the IPR team, or perhaps you’ll spare me the trouble and just let me know yourself whether such a question has been raised.
Concerning business discrimination, Mr. Bell stated the correct libertarian view. He then used statistics to show why a store owner would be justified (not necessarily right) in discriminating. So it is now a blockable offense simply to state an opinion? I’ve seen similar statements from Andy Jacobs, should he be concerned about getting blocked? This action stifles free speech, which is bad for discussion on this blog.
In my view, it’s very simple: if someone continuously says racist things, he is probably a racist.
Additionally, even if Mr. Bell were correct that being called a racist in blog comments is actionable libel, truth is a defense against charges of libel. Take for example
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/the-random-spoon-gary-johnson-is-wrong-on-discrimination-and-i-dont-care/#comment-1348301
Mr. Bell writes
“. The main objection I have is that, as a non-religious person, I think that a person’s right to discriminate shouldn’t be limited merely to religious reasons. If anything, in principle, what’s wrong with a person (or business) deciding that he doesn’t want to deal with gays, in protest to their huge spreading of HIV/AIDS over the last 35-40 years? Or as a protest of their suing businesses for refusing to deal with them? Or what about blacks, whose violent crime rates soar above the rest of the population? They now claim that “Black Lives Matter”, but that only seems to be the case when those black lives are taken by (usually white, but not necessarily) cops, frequently in fully-justified circumstances? Arguably, these kinds of reasons are at least as logical as those based on religion.”
In other words, not only does Mr. Bell believe that businesses should have the right to discriminate against LGBT people, black people, etc., he also believes that they actually would be right to do so. If Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams walked into a business, he would be in favor of refusing to serve him based solely on race and the actions of other people who also happen to be black. He has made similar comments about Muslims, and if I’m not mistaken also about Hispanics. If treating people on the basis of their race and not as individuals isn’t racism, what is?
But, of course Mr. Bell is not a racist, or so he says, and anyone who calls him one is committing actionable libel.. according to him.
Actually, my understanding is that the main issue for Mr. Redlich and many of the editors was Mr. Bell’s general conduct in the comments, and the frivolous litigation threats were only a secondary matter. I do understand that the decision was not unanimous.
That’s a real shame considering he was discussing issues and was baited into discussing extraneous matters.
It appears that IPR is now in fact blocking Mr. Bell’s messages. However, I checked with an IPR editor I know, and he said that this has never been the case prior to today. It appears that Mr. Bell’s frivolous litigation threats, combined with the consensus of most of the IPR editors that his presence was deleterious to the IPR comment community, persuaded Mr. Redlich to make that decision.
“Don’t pretend that you don’t realize that IPR is erasing messages, for example.”
I’m not “pretending” anything.
“f they were honest, they would at least replace the deleted messages with placeholders, showing what they are doing. They don’t.”
You seem to be operating under a novel and unorthodox definition of “honesty.”
We have had a few trolls who have been banned and who sneak back in. Their comments, when noticed, are deleted without comment and they’re banned under their new IPs, etc. No, we don’t owe them or anyone else a “placeholder” explaining what we’re doing. The only “dishonesty” would be in claiming that we are using such “placeholders” when we aren’t.
If you’re suggesting that you personally have had messages erased here, I won’t pretend that I’m 100% certain you’re either lying or imagining it. Just 99.9% sure.
Jim,
The only thing that is clear here is that you’re some combination of liar, troll, and idiot.
“Except that the fools are trying to obstruct my access to this system”
Unlikely, but even if it’s true, irrelevant. You’re not ENTITLED to “access to this system.” It belongs to someone. Your presence here is at that person’s sufferance, not some kind of right.
Fully agreed with Mr. Knapp’s initial thoughts.
Hmm. Hadn’t bothered following this thread because I assumed it would be reasonably non-controversial. Guess I was wrong. Quite a bit of controversy, even excluding Crybull Jim Bell’s frivolous litigation threats.
Initial thoughts:
Crybully Jim: “those that are merely crypto-liberals, choosing a libertarian-sounding way to describe what they really want to do.”
“Like me and Andy on immigration.” That’s all you had to say — “like me and Andy on immigration.”
langa: “As for ‘public’ property, there should be none, but as long as there is, it should be run in the way that best serves the majority.”
No, as long as there’s “public property,” libertarians should fight to forbid the state to infringe liberty on that property — said infringements to include having government officials standing in front of bathroom doors demanding to see people’s genitalia.
There are only two possibilities remaining, either that Jim has unbelievably severe reading comprehension problems complicated by rapidly advancing dementia, or that he is intentionally trolling to get a rise out of people. In either case, engaging him further would be a waste of time. Even after pointing out that he is confusing my statement with that of the person who I am quoting and responding to, poor old confused Jim keeps doing it. Go home Mr. Bell, you sir are drunk. Or stay home, as the case may be.
Mark Foolishly said:
““With all due respect, Mark, the idea of changing a birth certificate is FOOLISH. ””
“Tell that to the person I was quoting as that appears to be the fig leaf that the pro-bigotry side wants to use to explain how they wouldn’t be treating post-operation transsexuals so horribly after all.”
How is it that changing the pattern of black ink on a small piece of paper amounts to not treating people so horribly?
You apparently ignored my point that if they want to have a “Official you’re now a girl; you were a boy” certificate, then the government can start issuing such pandering documents. Useable, presumably, for anything that would need such a document.
Jim essentially played with his feces in public by saying:
So, saying that it is a highly arguable assertion that he is not a public figure means that I forego the ability to credibly argue that he is not a public figure. With pretzel logic like that, is there any wonder this jailhouse lawyer would up practicing law on the wrong side of the bars?
Jim Bell delusionally sputtered:
“If you are able to pull up old, private emails between me and Redlich, a jury could decide that you (or a predecessor was) in a sufficient position of control to be considered legally responsible for handling Redlich’s affairs in regard to IPR.”
Apparently Jim is unaware of an invention known as email forwarding by which, emails get forwarded from one person to the next, who may sent it to dozens, some of whom may forward it to their own lists, and so on. Of course, we all know that Jim is not actually that stupid, so here we have further evidence that he is actually trolling, for anyone who didn’t already know.
“I used the term “libel”. I _DIDN’T_ use the term “lawsuit”. ”
Also the word sued, as in lawsuit. As I said readers can draw their own conclusions.
Mark foolishly said: “” I’m mad at YOUR organization”
“Poor old delusional Jim apparently thinks I’m part of some kind of organization.”
If you are able to pull up old, private emails between me and Redlich, a jury could decide that you (or a predecessor was) in a sufficient position of control to be considered legally responsible for handling Redlich’s affairs in regard to IPR.
Mark foolishly said:
“Jim: “I scrolled up, and saw…no threat of a lawsuit! ””
“Since other people can scroll up as well, I’ll allow them to draw their own conclusions on that one.”
I used the term “libel”. I _DIDN’T_ use the term “lawsuit”. By appealing to the opinions of others, you are furiously backsliding from something you falsely claimed, and I correctly identified that you were wrong. How many more times will you screw up?
You will claim that yours was an “understandable error”. For very uncareful people, sure it is!
Mark said: ““Jim Bell says he is not a Public Figure within the meaning of NYT v. Sullivan”.”
You obviously don’t know what “public figure” means in the specific legal context of NYT v. Sullivan.
“Highly arguable assertion. ”
You may not realized it, but this, your claim, means that you forego the ability to credibly argue that I am NOT a “public figure”.
“But even if it were true, you would still be on shakier ground than Bill Cosby in a jello wrestling ring during a massive earthquake, since malice or no malice it is a matter of subjective opinion whether someone is or is not a racist.”
Sorry, but you keep repeating that kind of claim based on the idea that you actually know anything about libel law. The truth is very different.For example, consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkovich_v._Lorain_Journal_Co.
“Majority opinion[edit]
“After recounting the case history and the court’s recent rulings in libel cases, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority that the statement from Gertz was not “intended to create a wholesale defamation exemption for anything that might be labeled ‘opinion'” since “expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact.” Diadiun’s column, it found, strongly suggested that Milkovich perjured himself and was not couched hyperbolically, figuratively or in any other way that would mean the writer didn’t seriously mean it. And since that statement could easily be found true or false by comparing Milkovich’s statements at the OHSAA hearing with his court testimony (which the column did not do), it was moot whether it was intended as opinion or not since it asserted a matter of objective fact. “The connotation that petitioner committed perjury is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false,” the Court concluded.”” [end of quote from Wikipedia]
In other words, the mere assertion that something is an “opinion” is NOT sufficient to excuse or justify a libel exemption. You didn’t know that, did you? But I not only knew it, I knew enough to be able to document what the law actually is, today.
” I’m mad at YOUR organization”
Poor old delusional Jim apparently thinks I’m part of some kind of organization. I guess he thinks I work for Redlich somehow? He also babbled something about me losing my job a short while ago. As well as being a spokesman for Redlich.
Jim appears to be utterly deranged, lunging at strawmen and shadows in the dark of his own disturbed mind.
Mark said: “I wasn’t around during the time Jim is talking about, but he he is so rude, arrogant and demanding that Warren probably just ignored him.”
No, Mark didn’t say that. Mark quoted someone else saying that. If you can’t manage such simple distinctions even after quote marks and/or italics are employed, it’s impossible to have a conversation with you. But then again, talking to you is probably a bad idea in any case, so that may in a way be a good thing.
Mark said: “I wasn’t around during the time Jim is talking about, but he he is so rude, arrogant and demanding that Warren probably just ignored him.”
You are already trying to make excuses for Redlich. Look at MY FIRST email to him, and THEN look at HIS first email to me. Get it?!? Could he justify his neglect of the complaint, LATER, by FIRST abusing me (by failing to address a possibly-legitimate complaint)? Whatever happened after that was a PRODUCT of Redlich’s deliberate, abusive neglect. Time-machines don’t exist, Mark! I’m mad at YOUR organization BECA– USE Redlich was, and remains, a JERK. The fact that I am treating him, and you, in a specific way today is a PRODUCT of his misconduct, and also that of your predecessors. Put simply, you don’t expect to be able to ‘kick the dog’ and yet complain when the ‘dog bites back’.
” What an absurd notion that someone would write to the owner of a private blog and demand to set the rules, ”
You are continuing to misrepresent what actually happened.
“disrespect the staff,”
No, I didn’t “disrespect the staff”. They libelled me, first.
” then threaten the owner.”
False, again! I didn’t “threaten” anything. I simply alerted Redlich as to the potential seriousness of the situation. His blatant neglect would be very useful in court to prove his misconduct. He, and you, “read between the lines”.
“Clearly, Jim doesn’t really understand the idea of “private property”. It’s hard to believe a Libertarian would be so controlling.””
I’ve already explained that Redlich has already consented to the public’s use of his blog. But NO, that doesn’t mean that to use his blog, each user consents to allow others (including IPR staff) to libel them.
“But you are NOW responding, ostensibly on his behalf.”
More erroneous assumptions on your part. I in no way shape or form speak for Mr. Redlich.
“I scrolled up, and saw…no threat of a lawsuit! ”
Since other people can scroll up as well, I’ll allow them to draw their own conclusions on that one.
“Wow, in reading this thread, it’s clear Jim doesn’t understand:
A. Private property (Redlich’s blog)
B. What libel is
C. Free speech
Jim, you might want to stop embarrassing yourself.”
Too late. But on the plus side, at least it’s possible some other people will see how embarrassed he should be.
“I spent 10,000 hours in law libraries, and I read a lot about many kinds of law, INCLUDING defamation.”
The problem is that your reading comprehension is remarkably poor, as can be seen in this very thread, so the amount of time you spent there only served to worsen your delusions.
“Send a copy of this comment to Warren Redlich. Once he stops laughing, you ought to be out of a job.”
Non-sequitur. We haven’t discussed my job, which is completely besides the point.
“Again, stop pretending to be a lawyer.”
I never pretended to be a lawyer.
” calling someone a racist is considered defamatory in many U.S. states and English Commonwealth countries. Now, the facts of a given suit matter most; but yes, people have sued for defamation over being called a racist and won.”
Over comments in the comment section of a blog addressed at a person who posts under only a first name? Good luck with that one.
Jill Pyeatt foolishly said:
“Wow, in reading this thread, it’s clear Jim doesn’t understand:”
[you sure like to say “Wow” a lot!]
“A. Private property (Redlich’s blog)
What you don’t understand is that Warren Redlich has already consented to the public’s use of his blog. And so, he is ‘liable’ (different word) for ‘libel’ that occurs. As a lawyer, he fully understands this. It goes with the territory of running a blog.
“B. What libel is”
I suppose you’re suggesting that you actually BELIEVE that Mark’s idea of what constitutes “libel” is legally accurate. Which law school or paralegal school did YOU get your degree from?
“C. Free speech”
It is ARGUABLE that “free speech” means that there should be NO libel laws. And, surprisingly, I am quite sympathetic to this concept. But that isn’t yet the way things are actually run. One of the problems with HAVING anti-libel laws (both criminal and civil, although the former is exceedingly rare today) is that this implicitly implies that ‘People wouldn’t be able to say [that] if it wasn’t true’. Even when it isn’t true.
“Jim, you might want to stop embarrassing yourself.”
I think YOU are well beyond embarrassment, Jill, unless maybe you have had some formal or informal schooling in Libel law.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_prof_sues_students_says_they_defamed_him_by_calling_him_a_racist
“Jim Bell says he is not a Public Figure within the meaning of NYT v. Sullivan”.
Highly arguable assertion. But even if it were true, you would still be on shakier ground than Bill Cosby in a jello wrestling ring during a massive earthquake, since malice or no malice it is a matter of subjective opinion whether someone is or is not a racist.
Mark said: “jim”“Ha ha! He didn’t even RESPOND with an IDENTIFIABLE answer to anything I said! His first (and only) response could have been BOILERPLATE. ””
“Which still would have been overly generous on his part.”
A foolish comment on your part.
““BTW, Redlich’s a LAWYER, right? Isn’t there something a bit absurd about A LAWYER objecting to the use of the court system?!?””
“I didn’t see him complaining.”
But you are NOW responding, ostensibly on his behalf. By being a lawyer, it could easily be concluded that he already has consented to being served with a summons, and have to ‘appear’ (technical legal term) in court.
” Although, if I were a lawyer, would that automatically make me approve for whatever bizarre and ridiculous grounds someone decides to sue someone else over? I don’t think so.”
Still no threat of a lawsuit.
“Quote the EXACT WORDING.”
Done at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/nc-libertarians-say-repeal-hb-2/#comment-1355959
“IPR owner, LAWYER Warren Redlich, was ALLOWING LIBEL on his system.”
AHA! STILL no threat of a lawsuit! I am VERY literal on such matters. I believe I successfully alerted Redlich as to the seriousness of the situation, WITHOUT threatening a lawsuit. GOTCHA! You merely ASSUMED! THAT is what NON-lawyers do.
“Redlich doesn’t read the comments to see whether he approves them or not.”
That constitutes an ADMISSION of negligent behavior on his part. (‘chuckle’: I couldn’t resist) In other words, you are ADMITTING that he is aware that HE IS NOT AWARE if libelous content appears on IPR. Believe it or not, that is a serious admission! It precludes a later defense that people he selects were acting without his apparent authority. This is important.
“He rarely reads them even after they are posted. And the comments in question, being subjective statements of opinion about your stated views, could not by definition be libel.”
You keep saying that. I keep pointing out that REALITY is different.
”” And now, the ultimate irony is that you are claiming that I threatened a LAWSUIT! Go back and check. “”””What PRECISELY did I say?”
“Scroll up and you’ll see.”
I scrolled up, and saw…no threat of a lawsuit! See, one of the consequences of my 10,000 hours+ in a law library is I pay VERY close attention to what I write, and other people read. Unlike you.
“And BTW, transitioning is presumably expensive. If a person has enough money for THAT, they certainly would have enough to change a piece of paper. ”
Transitioning is indeed expensive. It’s a big deal that people spend years saving up for, and sometimes end up going to extreme measures to finance, such as going into sex work, or doing other dangerous and sometimes illegal things to get the money together. That doesn’t mean that years or decades later that person also has the money and time to change their birth certificate, assuming that the person I was quoting is correct about that, just so they can use the correct restroom legally.
“And if that is still too expensive, WHY? Just make it cheaper.”
That’s not exactly up to the person being stuck with a retroactive demand to petition the court to change their birth certificate just so they can go in public and use the correct restroom without fear of arrest, as things that are just as bad or worse are liable to happen to them if they follow the law and use the wrong one.
Wow, in reading this thread, it’s clear Jim doesn’t understand:
A. Private property (Redlich’s blog)
B. What libel is
C. Free speech
Jim, you might want to stop embarrassing yourself.
“With all due respect, Mark, the idea of changing a birth certificate is FOOLISH. ”
Tell that to the person I was quoting as that appears to be the fig leaf that the pro-bigotry side wants to use to explain how they wouldn’t be treating post-operation transsexuals so horribly after all.
“I wasn’t around during the time Jim is talking about, but he he is so rude, arrogant and demanding that Warren probably just ignored him. What an absurd notion that someone would write to the owner of a private blog and demand to set the rules, disrespect the staff, then threaten the owner. Clearly, Jim doesn’t really understand the idea of “private property”. It’s hard to believe a Libertarian would be so controlling.”
Precisely.
Mark said: “Jim: “I complained they were LIBELLING me.”
“They were expressing opinions. It’s a matter of opinion that you are a racist. Libel is knowingly making a false claim about someone with the deliberate intent to cause them harm.
(BTW, you still haven’t shown I was threatening a lawsuit)
False. What amounts to “libel” depends on the jurisdiction involved. However, I will start by a definition found by Google-searching ‘libel definition’:
li·bel?l?b?l/Submit noun 1. LAW
“a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.
synonyms: defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; aspersions, denigration, vilification, disparagement, derogation, insult, slander, malicious gossip; lie, slur, smear, untruth, false report; informalmudslinging, bad-mouthing
“she sued two newspapers for libel”.
And when I google-search ‘libel opinion’ we find:
“No—but merely labeling a statement as your “opinion” does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.)
Online Defamation Law | Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://www.eff.org/issues/…/defamationElectronic Frontier Foundation”
“Racist” is clearly a defamatory term of derision. It is, therefore, up to a jury to determine whether it is “libel” in any given situation.
“Since whether or not someone is a racist is a subjective matter of opinion it can’t be libel, since it can’t be proven to be false.”
I have to laugh at your ‘Perry Mason School of Law’ ideas. Talk to Warren Redlich about that. BTW, ask him about “New York Times vs. Sullivan”, a Supreme Court case I feel certain he’s heard about. Tell him, “Jim Bell says he is not a Public Figure within the meaning of NYT v. Sullivan”. He says he doesn’t have to prove ‘absence of malice’. ” He will know what I’m talking about.
” The fact that some people have this opinion of you doesn’t make them guilty of libel just for stating their opinion.”
Sorry, but that’s not the way libel law works. Unless you were at least a paralegal, you wouldn’t have a clue. I spent 10,000 hours in law libraries, and I read a lot about many kinds of law, INCLUDING defamation.
“Saying that you fuck sheep could be libel, if you can positively prove that you are not in fact a sheepfucker and that the statement was made deliberately so as to damage you. Proving that would be rather difficult since it involves proving a negative. Saying that you have been convicted of murder could be libel, since objectively it can be searched as to whether you have a record of any such convictions.”
Send a copy of this comment to Warren Redlich. Once he stops laughing, you ought to be out of a job.
“Proving libel because someone called you a racist is a rather tall order, because whether someone is a racist or not is a subjective determination and proving that you are not a racist involves proving a negative of a subjective opinion. In other words, it is a very absurd basis for a lawsuit, which is probably why it didn’t merit a response any more than your other absurd emails did.”
Again, stop pretending to be a lawyer. You’re not very good at it.
From: http://whatisdefamation.org/callling-someone-racist-defamatory/
A few months back, a New York appeals court ruled that “gay” is not defamatory. The New York decision got me thinking about oft-levied accusations of racism. Is it defamatory to call someone a racist? Or is it simply a matter of opinion?
The short answer is this: calling someone a racist is considered defamatory in many U.S. states and English Commonwealth countries. Now, the facts of a given suit matter most; but yes, people have sued for defamation over being called a racist and won.
In fact, two race-related defamation lawsuits recently made headlines.
Accusations of Racism Spark Defamation Lawsuit In South Bend, Indiana
A police scandal in South Bend, Indiana, is the centerpiece of a recent defamation lawsuit involving accusations of racism. Three police officers are suing a handful of officials over “tape-gate.” The ins-and-outs of the original “tape-gate scandal” are better left for another article; suffice it to say, for the purposes of this defamation discussion, that Tim Corbett, David Wells and Brian Young – who all are employed as police officers – are suing over allegedly illegal wire-tapping.
The trio has already filed a lawsuit against two individuals connected to the case, and now they’re also levying charges against City Council member, Henry Davis, Jr. According to documents, Corbett, Wells and Young feel that an August letter, which Davis sent to the Department of Justice, imploring them to investigate the plaintiffs, was defamatory. Specifically, Davis’ note reads, “… the police officers who have been recorded having politically incorrect, racially insensitive, and perhaps criminal discussions on police department telephones.”
The defamation attorney defending Davis, Kathy Cekanski-Ferrand, is confident that the police officers will lose this libel lawsuit. As she explained to ABC news, “[As] a member of the City Council, they do not give up their rights of constitutional freedom of speech.”
Comic Frankie Boyle Wins Defamation Lawsuit Against The Mirror For Calling Him A Racist
South Bend isn’t the only jurisdiction currently dealing with racial defamation lawsuits. Comic Frankie Boyle recently won a lawsuit against the UK Daily Mirror for calling him a “racist.” Boyle sued for defamation over a July 19, 2011 article entitled “Channel 4: We are Back on the Boyle.” The author calls Boyle a “racist” and insinuates the performer was “forced to quit” a British television program called, “Mock the Week.”
After reading the article, Boyle decided to file a defamation lawsuit. He explained that his humor is about mocking “the view of people who believe” such things. He later went on to tell The Guradian, “Racism is still a very serious problem in society which is why I’ve made a point of always being anti-racist in my life and work…and that’s why I brought this action.” [end of portion quoted]
“Ha ha! He didn’t even RESPOND with an IDENTIFIABLE answer to anything I said! His first (and only) response could have been BOILERPLATE. ”
Which still would have been overly generous on his part.
“BTW, Redlich’s a LAWYER, right? Isn’t there something a bit absurd about A LAWYER objecting to the use of the court system?!?”
I didn’t see him complaining. Although, if I were a lawyer, would that automatically make me approve for whatever bizarre and ridiculous grounds someone decides to sue someone else over? I don’t think so.
“Quote the EXACT WORDING.”
Done at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/nc-libertarians-say-repeal-hb-2/#comment-1355959
“IPR owner, LAWYER Warren Redlich, was ALLOWING LIBEL on his system.”
Redlich doesn’t read the comments to see whether he approves them or not. He rarely reads them even after they are posted. And the comments in question, being subjective statements of opinion about your stated views, could not by definition be libel.
” And now, the ultimate irony is that you are claiming that I threatened a LAWSUIT! Go back and check. What PRECISELY did I say?”
Scroll up and you’ll see.
“No, I was CRITICIZING the foolilsh actions of Paulie (in part). Everything I said was perfectly appropriate and correct.”
Your criticism made no sense, as you alleged that there was some kind of “shutting down debate” just because some people were supposedly being mean to you and others publicly said they would stop reading your comments as you had become just as boring as you must be bored.
“Well, I didn’t use the term “triggered”. Maybe that’s a word you used.”
Correct, that’s not a word you used. It’s another word for what you say the mean ole moderators here did to you. You also didn’t say that they violated your safe space, but that’s exactly what you did say amounts to.
“The malicious actions of Paulie, ”
Were what? The only thing you pointed to was that he said he would ignore you, and even you acknowledged that is his right.
” I believe, therefore, that my subsequent suspicions were FULLY justified and proven.”
So, you made some laughable allegations, got more response than you deserved, continued to make more absurd accusations, got ignored, made a ridiculous lawsuit threat, continued to be ignored, and used that to convince yourself that you were being “blocked” or censored somehow, with no evidence whatsoever. That’s a great illustration of the “logic” you employ on a regular basis to draw your conclusions.
I’d like to put this on a new subject. Hint?
On February 10, 2016, Warren Redlich, owner of IPR, proved that he is utterly insane:
“In an email sent to IPR editors and contributors earlier today, IPR’s owner, Warren Redlich, 2010 Libertarian Candidate for New York Governor, endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders for President.”
This should be self-proving.
“Mr. Redlich explained the reasoning behind his endorsement as follows:
“1. Unfortunately I do not think the Libertarian Party will mount a credible campaign for president in 2016. There is hope for the LP in the future, but this year does not look good.”
HUH?!? Did he seriously believe that NONE of the then-proposed candidates for President in the LP party weren’t “credible”??? And he apparently calls Bernie Sanders ‘credible’, therefore”
““2. With Rand Paul’s departure, there is no hope left in the GOP. There are still a few libertarian-ish members in Congress, with Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and maybe Sen. Mike Lee (Utah). But none left in the presidential race.”
I too wish Rand Paul would have been selected for GOP candidate. I would presumably still voted for the LP candidate (if they didn’t cross-endorse Paul; is that possible?), but I am quite confident that most of the original 18 Republican candidates were more “libertarian” than Bernie Sanders. Hell, Hillary Clinton would probably have been more “libertarian” than Bernie Sanders, for god’s sake!! This makes me wonder what Redllich REALLY was thinking.
““3. Although I detest Bernie’s economic views, he is by far the most credible anti-war, and anti-drug-war candidate remaining in the race.”
With all due respect, the Democrats (Hillary; Obama) have thoroughly proven that they are not really doing to do anything about the War on Drugs. Obama had a nearly-unfilibusterable Senate 2009-Jan 2011, and what did HE do? NOTHING!
“Libertarians are universally opposed to our military adventurism overseas.”
But Democrats, in general, are not. Iraq War II in 2003 was heavily supported by Democrats, as well.
“Sanders opposed the Iraq War, the Kuwait War, and more. While Gary Johnson is a credible critic of the drug war, Sanders has done more on that issue while in office than Johnson ever did as Governor.”
And very few Democrates, nor Republicans, have done that as well. Doesn’t justify voting for a Socialist/Communist for President.
““Sanders will have difficulty getting his economic agenda through Congress. ”
That’s a foolish enormous understatement, and Warren Redlich knows it! Besides, we CAN”T AFFORD Sanders’ “economic agenda”, even if by some anti-miracle it got passed.
“But as President he will have the power to end the wars unilaterally without needing congressional support.”
Ironically, that is precisely the problem! Going into Iraq in 2003 was utterly, bombastically STUPID. Idiot Bush 43 trying to avenge the embarrassment of his idiot father, Bush 41. Sadly however, leaving ZERO troops in 2011 was virtually equally stupid. That, coupled by the mis-actions of the Iraqi government in 2011 and 2012, pretty much led to ISIS. Obama’s willingness to completely ignore that situation (he must have at least KNOWN about it!) led to the disaster that now is ISIS and Syria.
” And we can at least hope that a Sanders Justice Department will end federal interference with state drug law reform efforts.”
Fool Obama and a nearly filibusterproof Congress totally missed their seeming opportunity. Further, Obama could have pardoned EVERY non-violent drug offender on January 20, 2009, had he wanted to do so. Why not?
“In subsequent telephone and email interviews, Mr. Redlich expanded his explanation:
IPR: What has been the initial reaction to this endorsement?”
REDLICH: I have Libertarian friends who are angry with this endorsement because they see Senator Sanders as a socialist; I have Libertarian friends who are angry with this endorsement because they love the Libertarian Party/LNC; but I truly believe Senator Sanders is our best hope to end the War on Drugs and to end the wars and military expansion around the globe. He is our best hope for peace.”
If the WOD was the ONLY issue, maybe, but Sanders wouldn’t succeed. If he intended to pardon all drug offenders on “Day 1”, he could say so today, but he’ll never do that!
“IPR: What if some last-minute, new candidate emerges as the Libertarian Party nominee in late May? Would you reconsider this endorsement of Senator Sanders?”
Redlich needs to explain why no current LP candidate-hopeful wouldn’t qualify.
REDLICH: Generally I don’t think last minute candidates are viable. If it was Ron Paul then sure.
IPR: Are you planning on attending the LP POTUS Nominating Convention in May?REDLICH: I do not plan to attend the convention. If I was invited I would consider it. I do think there’s some hope for the LP in the future but only when it has a candidate with a simple message and a strategy. I have both myself, but am not ready to run. I’m not sure the LP would support me if I did run, because few in the LP appreciate the idea of a simple message and a strategy. That’s the main reason the party keeps floundering.”
LP candidates ALREADY have a “simple message and strategy”. And that should include, “Let’s ignore idiots who are merely PRETENDING to be libertarians”. Guess who?
“IPR: Will you be endorsing Libertarian candidates for Governor, the US Congress or other offices?
REDLICH: Very likely yes. I have done so in the past and will do so again in the future. See for example: http://westbocanews.com/2014/10/16/west-boca-news-endorses-adrian-wyllie-for-governor.”
Won’t do a bit of good. To be a CREDIBLE endorsement, the endorser must be CREDIBLE, too.
“I complained they were LIBELLING me.”
They were expressing opinions. It’s a matter of opinion that you are a racist. Libel is knowingly making a false claim about someone with the deliberate intent to cause them harm. Since whether or not someone is a racist is a subjective matter of opinion it can’t be libel, since it can’t be proven to be false. The fact that some people have this opinion of you doesn’t make them guilty of libel just for stating their opinion.
Saying that you fuck sheep could be libel, if you can positively prove that you are not in fact a sheepfucker and that the statement was made deliberately so as to damage you. Proving that would be rather difficult since it involves proving a negative. Saying that you have been convicted of murder could be libel, since objectively it can be searched as to whether you have a record of any such convictions.
Proving libel because someone called you a racist is a rather tall order, because whether someone is a racist or not is a subjective determination and proving that you are not a racist involves proving a negative of a subjective opinion. In other words, it is a very absurd basis for a lawsuit, which is probably why it didn’t merit a response any more than your other absurd emails did.
“Like I said, the block HAD TO have been known by the people running the system.”
Repeating a claim doesn’t make it true. You provided zero evidence that a block ever existed. And if it did exist, it wouldn’t have been something that he would have had to know about. Anyone with a basic knowledge of wordpress admin would know that. But all of that is once again besides the point, because even if there had been a block and even if he did know about it it still would not justify your threat. it still would in no way shape or form justify running to the government courts if a private business chose to shun you. Isn’t that actually the whole thrust of the argument you have been trying to make in this whole entire thread, you statist crybully hypocrite?
“Please quote, EXACTLY the “lawsuit threat” you say I made.”
Already did. See my first comment above at 23:01.
Mark said: ““Serious post-operative transsexuals can petititon the courts to have the sex stated on their birth certficate changed.” Petitioning courts takes time and money which not everyone has.”
With all due respect, Mark, the idea of changing a birth certificate is FOOLISH. A BC commemorates an important event that documents a specific event (bith of a child) at a specific time and day, and at a specific location (usually a county and state). It includes the bare minimum of information.
The fact that a person may, decades later, have an operation to change a part of a body in no way retroactively changes the facts of the event that occurred on that date of birth.
You don’t get a right to change a BC simply because you had tonsils removed, or an appendix removed, or a hernia fixed, or a heart transplated, or a cancer removed, or a limb amputated, or a mastectomy, or a bone set. Indeed, there is no reason at all to do that: It doesn’t CHANGE the facts of the birth, at all!
Even if somebody wants some sort of “official” okey-dokey that says, “You’re now a girl!”, etc, there is no reason to change the ORIGINAL document called a “birth certificate”. Why not have an “Official you were a boy; you’re now a girl!” certificate, one that does not attempt to retroactively lie about the true events decades later. THAT would be a true, accurate, and complete document. It woldn’t be a lie.
No, changing the original BC simply amounts to PANDERING. It helps somebody participate in a lie. There is simply no reason for that.
And BTW, transitioning is presumably expensive. If a person has enough money for THAT, they certainly would have enough to change a piece of paper. And if that is still too expensive, WHY? Just make it cheaper.
And libel? You must be kidding me!
If people call you “racist”, Jim–you just might be a racist.
I wasn’t around during the time Jim is talking about, but he he is so rude, arrogant and demanding that Warren probably just ignored him. What an absurd notion that someone would write to the owner of a private blog and demand to set the rules, disrespect the staff, then threaten the owner. Clearly, Jim doesn’t really understand the idea of “private property”. It’s hard to believe a Libertarian would be so controlling.
If Jim was even half as insufferable as he’s been on this thread (which I only now just glanced through), I don’t blame Warren.
Mark:
“Jim:“The way you quoted my emails, you are implying that Redlich received, and dealt with them, in an honest and forthright fashion. But that’s NOT what happened. It was clear, eventually, that he had absolutely no intention of actually dealing with my specific complaints.””
“I implied no such thing, but you continue to operate on unfounded assumptions as usual. It’s true that Warren made the mistake of responding to you once and did not respond after that as you continued to send messages after that,…”
Ha ha! You say it was a “mistake”, at least you are implying that it was an INADVERTENT mistake. It was definitely a “mistake”, but in no way was it inadvertent. It was rude and intentional.
“… up to and including the lawsuit threat.
Please quote, EXACTLY the “lawsuit threat” you say I made.
“However, NONE of your messages even revealed that you suspected that your messages had been blocked.”
Like I said, the block HAD TO have been known by the people running the system. Redlich owns the system. He did not engage in the discussion. Don’t pretend that he didn’t have a responsibility to fix problems with his staff.
Instead, you complained that people were disrespecting you, violating your safe space”
Huh?!? “Safe space”? How absurd! I complained they were LIBELLING me. What does that have to do with “safe spaces”?
,” and/or “shutting down debate” by ignoring you.”
No, I was CRITICIZING the foolilsh actions of Paulie (in part). Everything I said was perfectly appropriate and correct.
“You clearly felt triggered.”
Well, I didn’t use the term “triggered”. Maybe that’s a word you used.
” You also claimed without evidence that there was some explicit or implied obligations for moderators to be unbiased in the comment section,”
The malicious actions of Paulie, and the subsequent failure and/or refusal of Redlich to respond, amounted to a confirmation that misconduct would be tolerated. I believe, therefore, that my subsequent suspicions were FULLY justified and proven.
” even making the suggestion that they should be banned from commenting, ”
I was fully justified in suggesting that they should be banned from commenting. Remember, I was observing not merely the misconduct of Paulie, et al, but ALSO that of Warren Redlich himself. Don’t think of those as independent and unrelated events: From my point of view, misconduct by Paulie was immediately followed and protected by misconduct by Redlich.
“as if anyone would volunteer to put up articles and moderate discussions under those conditions.”
If Paulie hadn’t misbehaved, I wouldn’t have felt it necessary to make the suggestion.
“Naturally Warren thought that your complaints and demands were absurd and did not merit a reply.”
Ha ha! He didn’t even RESPOND with an IDENTIFIABLE answer to anything I said! His first (and only) response could have been BOILERPLATE. Do you know what “Boilerplate” means? It means a pre-canned response, designed to save time. In other words, he gets a complaint, selects what he thinks is the most-appropriate pre-canned response, and sends it.
I think you are merely CLAIMING that he “thought that [my] complaints were absurd…” This is just what you’re saying NOW, to “explain” why he didn’t send any more than a single, BOILERPLATE response.
” It was at this point that you threatened a lawsuit, revealing yourself for the hypocritical statist crybully that you in fact are.”
Quote the EXACT wording where I threatened “a lawsuit”.
BTW, Redlich’s a LAWYER, right? Isn’t there something a bit absurd about A LAWYER objecting to the use of the court system?!?
“Once again: You threatened to involve the government… ”
Quote the EXACT WORDING.
“because some people did not run a private business in a way that you found to be sufficiently accommodating. I hope anyone who made it through a comment of this length appreciates the irony here.”
Except that IPR owner, LAWYER Warren Redlich, was ALLOWING LIBEL on his system. And I complained about that. “Irony”?? THAT’S ironic! And now, the ultimate irony is that you are claiming that I threatened a LAWSUIT! Go back and check. What PRECISELY did I say?
“Serious post-operative transsexuals can petititon the courts to have the sex stated on their birth certficate changed.”
Petitioning courts takes time and money which not everyone has.
“Show the public Redlich’s ONLY answer, and I think it will be clear that HE is to blame for not dealing with my complaints. ”
If he is to blame for anything at all it is for responding to you even that once.
“And it will also be clear that his CONTINUING failure to respond fully justifies my comments to him”
Nonsense. He is not under any obligation to respond to you. Nothing you said deserved a response. You never even alleged you had messages blocked despite sending multiple emails with various different allegations. And even if you had in fact mentioned it – assuming only for the sake of discussion even that it had been true – it still would in no way shape or form justify running to the government courts if a private business chose to shun you. Isn’t that actually the whole thrust of the argument you have been trying to make in this whole entire thread, you statist crybully hypocrite?
@roy 0841
The Carolina law doesn’t say you have to use the government restroom designated for your “birth gender.” It says you have to use the government restroom of the sex “stated on a person’s birth certificate.”
Serious post-operative transsexuals can petititon the courts to have the sex stated on their birth certficate changed. That has been the case in most states for more than 40 years.
“I figured, for example, that the fact I was being blocked was already known to Redlich. Are you implying he DIDN’T know about it?!?”
I see no reason to assume you were blocked. If you were in fact blocked I see no reason to assume he would know about it. Since you didn’t even say that you suspected it, your case is even weaker. But ***even if*** you were blocked and ***even if*** he did know about it you would still be a hypocritical statist crybully for threatening to run to the government about it. Got it?
“The way you quoted my emails, you are implying that Redlich received, and dealt with them, in an honest and forthright fashion. But that’s NOT what happened. It was clear, eventually, that he had absolutely no intention of actually dealing with my specific complaints.”
I implied no such thing, but you continue to operate on unfounded assumptions as usual. It’s true that Warren made the mistake of responding to you once and did not respond after that as you continued to send messages after that, up to and including the lawsuit threat. However, NONE of your messages even revealed that you suspected that your messages had been blocked.
Instead, you complained that people were disrespecting you, violating your safe space, and/or “shutting down debate” by ignoring you. You clearly felt triggered. You also claimed without evidence that there was some explicit or implied obligations for moderators to be unbiased in the comment section, even making the suggestion that they should be banned from commenting, as if anyone would volunteer to put up articles and moderate discussions under those conditions. Naturally Warren thought that your complaints and demands were absurd and did not merit a reply. It was at this point that you threatened a lawsuit, revealing yourself for the hypocritical statist crybully that you in fact are.
Once again: You threatened to involve the government because some people did not run a private business in a way that you found to be sufficiently accommodating. I hope anyone who made it through a comment of this length appreciates the irony here.
Mark said: ““Jim: If you (or somebody else) are going to disclose selectively what happened, you are lying. Disclose EVERY email Redlich sent to me, ALL of them. ””
“Excerpting an exchange isn’t lying.”
In THIS case, I think it truly is. You obviously still had emails that were never responded to, and somebody there should have been aware of the lack of responses.
Hopefully I am not the only one one who notices that you frequently make foolish, absurd and ridiculous statements such as the one quoted directly above, despite your obviously high intelligence, leading to the rather inescapable conclusion that you are in fact trolling.”
I think you were deliberately trying to mislead the public about those communications, when you “forgot” to mention that Redllich ONLY answered THE FIRST ONE that I sent.
Show the public Redlich’s ONLY answer, and I think it will be clear that HE is to blame for not dealing with my complaints. And it will also be clear that his CONTINUING failure to respond, then, fully justifies my comments to him: I think people will be shocked that he wasn’t willing to actually engage in a (what could have been) a short conversation correcting an unjustified block.
Mark: “I said I was BLOCKED.”
“Yes, you did say that, now. You did not say that then, despite your multiple emails; and you didn’t provide any evidence whatsoever for your claim, then or now.”
READ what I said about Warren Redlich IGNORING my emails! All but the first, which made it quite clear he had NO INTENTION of dealing with ANY ANY ANY ANY of my complaints! I was complaining about misconduct by IPR people. When the head guy virtually makes a show about NOT responding to my emails, I suggest he forfeits the right to complain about what I DIDN’T say. I never got to that; I figured, for example, that the fact I was being blocked was already known to Redlich. Are you implying he DIDN’T know about it?!?
Can I now PROVE that I was blocked? I’m trying to figure out how to prove that. I was posting my comments, or at least TRYING to. That didn’t work. Repeatedly. Are you saying that you know, for certain, that I was never blocked?
langa: “Well, let’s see. Here’s one about the federal budget deal: lpnc[dotorg]/old_parties_collude_on_budget_deal
Here’s one about Donald Trump, who last I checked, was running for a federal office: lpnc[dotorg]/open_letter_to_muslim_republicans
And here’s one about a petition drive that’s taking place all the way out in Oklahoma: lpnc[dotorg]/oklahoma_petition_drive_needs_help
“So, these far-flung issues are perfectly appropriate subjects for the NC LP to comment on, but the subject of a local law in North Carolina, which is inextricably linked with a state law that they are opposing… Well, talking about that is obviously verboten. What a laughably bizarre claim. At least, unlike the others, you’re trying, but you’re going to have to do better than that.”
WELL DONE langa!!! I myself was astonished that they would make such a foolish and improper assertion, the idea that a State LP party shouldn’t comment on a Charlotte resolution obviously affecting individual rights! These guys obviously never took debate class in high school or college. Hell, I think even Obama criticized HB 2. http://www.wral.com/obama-says-hb2-should-be-overturned/15657287/
Presumably, the Democrat National Committee denounced HB 2, and probably a gaggle of Democrat Senators and Representatives.
What I’m afraid we’ll never see is one of these IPR trolls admit something like, ‘We’re sorry, but we never seriously believed that it was a valid argument that the NC LP shouldn’t criticize Ordinance 7056, merely because it was at a different level of government’. Myself, if I made such a dumb claim, I TOO(!!!!) would probably be so embarrassed as to want to apologize! I have to ask: What could possibly have been their thinking processes that led them to such an opportunistically foolish conclusion?
“I said I was BLOCKED.”
Yes, you did say that, now. You did not say that then, despite your multiple emails; and you didn’t provide any evidence whatsoever for your claim, then or now.
“And while YOU may not have been responsible or aware of that action, somebody in some level of authority was. I complained because I was blocked.”
And yet your complaint somehow failed to mention it in any way, even at the point that you threatened a lawsuit.
“In other words, maybe somebody else blocked me, I was eventually unblocked, ”
Then again, maybe not. Maybe you were never blocked at all. Maybe there was a temporary glitch in the automated spam filter that no one besides you even noticed, for example.
“If you (or somebody else) are going to disclose selectively what happened, you are lying. Disclose EVERY email Redlich sent to me, ALL of them. ”
Excerpting an exchange isn’t lying. Hopefully I am not the only one one who notices that you frequently make foolish, absurd and ridiculous statements such as the one quoted directly above, despite your obviously high intelligence, leading to the rather inescapable conclusion that you are in fact trolling.
To Jim: I’ll say what I wish to, to whom I wish to, in whatever words I wish to use.
Also, I’ll ignore any unpleasant person I wish to. You are at the top of that very short list.
Mark:
I hesitate immediately to do a complete response to your comment where you quote many of my emails to Warren Redlich. But skimming what you say, and what you quote, I note that you seem to be CAREFULLY avoiding disclosing the number of (or lack of same) actual responses that Warren Redlich made to me. A person reading your note would infer that my comments were part of an actual DISCUSSION.
Sadly, nothing could have been further from the truth. I sent Warren Redlich ONE INITIAL EMAIL. As I recall, he sent ONE back. Okay, I thought! The discussion can begin!
At that point, I sent another email. No response from Redlich. Figuring maybe he was limited in time, and since there was more to be said, I sent another, etc.
The way you quoted my emails, you are implying that Redlich received, and dealt with them, in an honest and forthright fashion. But that’s NOT what happened. It was clear, eventually, that he had absolutely no intention of actually dealing with my specific complaints.
And that’s the way it ended. No response, whatsoever. Redlich had thoroughly shown himself to be a JERK, one who was apparently willing to allow his minions to do his dirty-work for him. His lack of GENUINE response to me proves that.
You need to admit this. Cite the message(s) he sent to me. Only one?
Incorrect. As already explained repeatedly above, people can be opposed to portions of 7056 that applied to private property, yet still feel that state government should have stayed out of it. In other words that turning to state government is not the right way to address problems with local government. And as someone from LPNC itself explained, it can also mean that NCLP felt that 7056 should be addressed by the county party if they choose to do so whereas the state party is the correct group to comment about a state law, HB 2.
Sure, they can take that position, but there’s nothing “libertarian” about it. Libertarianism holds that aggression is illegitimate. Calling for the repeal of HB 2, without also calling for the repeal of 7056, is advocating aggression. There’s nothing libertarian about that.
Also covered repeatedly above. Even the “clearly libertarian” part of HB2 amounted to a higher level of government using its power to override a lower one, which some libertarians oppose even in cases where the lower level of government is in turn abusing its powers over individuals and businesses.
As has been explained repeatedly, that rests on a flawed understanding of decentralization. The correct libertarian position is decentralization down to the individual private property owner, which HB 2 protects, and 7056 prohibits. Try again.
The local Charlotte law should be a matter for the people of Charlotte to address. You can certainly say that they should apply pressure to their politicians, up to and including replacing them, for overstepping their legitimate authority in such matters. For that matter you can even argue that they would be justified in committing civil disobedience or open revolt. It does not then automatically follow that the state government had any legitimate right to intervene, nor that the state party should have addressed the city ordinance per se.
Let me see if I understand this. Are you actually arguing that a state LP should never comment on any legislation that occurs at any other level of government? So, if Charlotte passed a law saying that sodomy was illegal, and punishable by the death penalty, the NC LP would simply bite their tongue? So, if I can find any example of the NC LP, or any state LP, commenting on any local or federal law, or anything that happened in another state, that should be sufficient to disprove your argument, right?
Well, let’s see. Here’s one about the federal budget deal: http://www.lpnc.org/old_parties_collude_on_budget_deal
Here’s one about Donald Trump, who last I checked, was running for a federal office: http://www.lpnc.org/open_letter_to_muslim_republicans
And here’s one about a petition drive that’s taking place all the way out in Oklahoma: http://www.lpnc.org/oklahoma_petition_drive_needs_help
So, these far-flung issues are perfectly appropriate subjects for the NC LP to comment on, but the subject of a local law in North Carolina, which is inextricably linked with a state law that they are opposing… Well, talking about that is obviously verboten. What a laughably bizarre claim. At least, unlike the others, you’re trying, but you’re going to have to do better than that.
” Are you saying/implying that at no point I was blocked from posting to IPR?”
I have no idea. But I do know that I read the whole exchange that was forwarded to me and at no point during that exchange did you even make a claim that you were blocked much less provide any evidence for such a claim. Furthermore even if you did get blocked, in what way would that have violated your rights? Are you trying to make the claim that privately owned websites have no right to block anyone from posting?
“And I was objecting to false allegations of “racism” made by various posters.”
If someone thinks you are a racist they have the right to say so, with or without evidence. How seriously anyone else takes that claim is up to those other people, their opinion of you, and their opinion of those making such a claim. You don’t have any automatic right to a “safe space” where no one is allowed to call you a racist. And debate moderators have every right to actively participate in the debate. There is no obligation on their part, explicit or implied, to be unbiased in the comments sections. If you don’t like how they conduct the debate, you are free to leave, start your own discussion forum, etc. In no way shape or form does it justify running to the government courts as if you have some entitlement to comment on a website or to be treated the way you want to be treated in the comments.
“I assumed then, and continue to assume, that Warren Redlich was well-aware that I was being blocked by SOMEBODY, somebody with the power to do so, in IPR. ”
I’m guessing you assumed incorrectly, but even if you were correct, why would you assume that? And supposing he was, are you claiming that it is your legal right to post your opinion on any privately owned website with a comment section, even if the owners or their representatives do not want you there?
” I concluded that he was aware of that blocking. ”
You didn’t even ask him, you just assumed, and then went directly from making assumptions to using your own unchecked premises to threaten government action to force people to associate with you even if they don’t want to.
“Unable to defend myself on IPR (because of that block), I complained.”
But you didn’t even ask or for that matter reveal your suspicion that you were blocked. And you didn’t just complain – you also threatened to run to the government courts and use the force of the state to compel a privately owned business (website) to admit you whether they wanted to or not.
Do you believe that you have the same sort of “right” in meatspace? If you are in a bar or coffeehouse, and the bartender or barista says “get out of here you racist asshole” do you believe that you should then sue them and force them to let you in?
“Was I blocked, or not?”
Probably not. But even if you were, so what? How would that justify your threats of a lawsuit, after you assumed (but did not show evidence, assert, or even ask)?
“Who did that? ”
Who knows? Who cares? Maybe (most likely) no one.
“Why did they make false allegations of racism, and then block me to prevent me from defending myself?”
The question presumes that such a thing happened. You have shown zero evidence that it did. But again, if it had, it still would be within their rights to do so, and you would in fact be a hypocritical statist crybully if you ran to the government courts about it. Which in fact you already are just by virtue of having threatened to do so.
You threatened to involve the government because some people did not run a private business in a way that you found to be sufficiently accomodating. I hope anyone who made it through a comment of this length appreciates the irony here.
Jill Pyeatt said:
“Thanks, Mark, for pulling up those quotes from Jim. I knew the way he recalled the conversation with Warren was not at all what happened.”
Don’t say, “not at all what happened”.
It might be correct for you to say, “not ALL that happened.” (IOW, other things happened too.) See the difference?
Your statement implies that I was/am misrepresenting what happened. Rather, I suggest that you may not have been aware of the full events (particular in light of your current claim that you didn’t block me” In other words, maybe somebody else blocked me, I was eventually unblocked, and before that unblock I took the oppotunity to complain to Warren Redlich about Paulie’s and your misconduct. (Including false allegations of racism.)
I should also point out that Redlich virtually ignored my commentary, a fact this ‘disclosure’ conveniently leaves out. As I recall, he sent me ONE credible, initial, brief response, and then he ignored the rest. In other words, by doing so he signalled to me that he had no intention of overruling your and Paulie’s misconduct.
If you (or somebody else) are going to disclose selectively what happened, you are lying. Disclose EVERY email Redlich sent to me, ALL of them. There will be very few. Maybe that only ONE.
Jill Pyeatt said: “I don’t believe you were ever blocked, Jim, nor were your comments removed.”
Did I say my comments were removed? I said I was BLOCKED. And while YOU may not have been responsible or aware of that action, somebody in some level of authority was. I complained because I was blocked.
Jeff cottonwood said:
“”“Is there any reason why the NC LP couldn’t have applauded the clearly libertarian part of HB 2, while still noting that they had a problem with the other part?””
“Also covered repeatedly above. Even the “clearly libertarian” part of HB2 amounted to a higher level of government using its power to override a lower one, which some libertarians oppose even in cases where the lower level of government is in turn abusing its powers over individuals and businesses.”
It sounds like you’re confused. You called it “a higher level of government using its power to override a lower one,” But this is a special case of that: Here the higher level of government is merely preventing the lower level of government from acting in a way to violate the rights of building-owners.
“…which some libertarians oppose even in cases where the lower level of government is in turn abusing its powers over individuals and businesses.”
For your claim to be credible, you ought to give some examples of what you are describing. Which libertarians? What cases?
““Wouldn’t that have been far better than arguing that since the law isn’t perfect, it should be repealed in its entirety, especially since the alternative (the local Charlotte law) is far, far worse, from a libertarian perspective?””
“The local Charlotte law should be a matter for the people of Charlotte to address.”
“Should be…”
That’s a conveeeeeenient answer for a person who LIKES Ordinance 7056. The reality is, a (useful) part of HB-2 immediately corrected the error that was 7056. That, as opposed to the months or perhaps even years it would have taken to fix 7056. Are you suggesting that building owners should have been forced, even for such a time, to be offended by such an improper law? I don’t think so.
“You can certainly say that they should apply pressure to their politicians, up to and including replacing them, for overstepping their legitimate authority in such matters.”
Nobody said that they shouldn’t “apply pressure to their politicians”. But don’t try to suggest that’s all they could legitimately do.
So, what is wrong with completely overturning 7056 by means of a state law? You haven’t said.
“For that matter you can even argue that they would be justified in committing civil disobedience or open revolt. ”
People should not be required, explicitly or even implicitly, to put themselves at risk merely because they oppose an unjust law.
“It does not then automatically follow that the state government had any legitimate right to intervene, ”
Automatically? The authority of state government and law over counties and cities is rather well established. Indeed, the very existence of cities is a product of state law.
“nor that the state party should have addressed the city ordinance per se.”
Aha! We see! Yet another silly repetition of the argument that the STATE LP party somehow shouldn’t address an identified violation of people’s rights at a county or city level? When should we stop laughing? When have you EVER heard such a foolish argument made in another context?
I don’t believe you were ever blocked, Jim, nor were your comments removed. I choose not to spend time talking to you because the substance of almost all of your comments is nastiness. I gain no enlightenment from your comments, yet have to endure constant insults from you. I’m actually typing this short response to you against my better judgement, since I’m certain you will respond in a highly derogatory manner.
We are all truly volunteers. We’ve worked very hard to have a worthwhile community here. I get beat up enough just with life in general to have to put up with your constant barrage of insults.
I am commenting (in small part) about your recent note. (I will soon extend my comments). Just for now, I want to ask: Are you saying/implying that at no point I was blocked from posting to IPR? That’s NOT what I remember! And I was objecting to false allegations of “racism” made by various posters.
I assumed then, and continue to assume, that Warren Redlich was well-aware that I was being blocked by SOMEBODY, somebody with the power to do so, in IPR. I concluded that he was aware of that blocking. Unable to defend myself on IPR (because of that block), I complained.
Was I blocked, or not? Who did that? Why did they make false allegations of racism, and then block me to prevent me from defending myself?
(more comments soon.)
“Is there any reason why the NC LP couldn’t have applauded the clearly libertarian part of HB 2, while still noting that they had a problem with the other part?”
Also covered repeatedly above. Even the “clearly libertarian” part of HB2 amounted to a higher level of government using its power to override a lower one, which some libertarians oppose even in cases where the lower level of government is in turn abusing its powers over individuals and businesses.
“Wouldn’t that have been far better than arguing that since the law isn’t perfect, it should be repealed in its entirety, especially since the alternative (the local Charlotte law) is far, far worse, from a libertarian perspective?”
The local Charlotte law should be a matter for the people of Charlotte to address. You can certainly say that they should apply pressure to their politicians, up to and including replacing them, for overstepping their legitimate authority in such matters. For that matter you can even argue that they would be justified in committing civil disobedience or open revolt. It does not then automatically follow that the state government had any legitimate right to intervene, nor that the state party should have addressed the city ordinance per se.
Thanks, Mark, for pulling up those quotes from Jim. I knew the way he recalled the conversation with Warren was not at all what happened.
Please don’t think I’m trying to engage more conversation with you, Jim. This comment is for anyone else who happens to be reading this thread.
“By calling for its repeal (and remaining silent on 7056), the NC LP and its defenders are calling for a return to 7056, where the local government usurps private property rights.”
Incorrect. As already explained repeatedly above, people can be opposed to portions of 7056 that applied to private property, yet still feel that state government should have stayed out of it. In other words that turning to state government is not the right way to address problems with local government. And as someone from LPNC itself explained, it can also mean that NCLP felt that 7056 should be addressed by the county party if they choose to do so whereas the state party is the correct group to comment about a state law, HB 2.
“My recent comment was not ADDRESSED to langa: It simply QUOTED langa.”
It was addressed at a comment of mine that was clearly addressed to langa, not you. You appear to know a lot of big words and have a fairly high reading level, so you would have known that. That you would pretend not to is prima facie evidence that you are in fact trolling.
“Too bad you can’t make that simple distinction…”
Backatcha. Although, I strongly suspect you can, and actively chose to do otherwise.
“Well, if you’re going to accuse ME of being a “troll”, and expect to be believed by anyone intellectually honest, you will have to show why my actions qualify under a reasonable definition of the word “troll”.”
Ralph Gordon provided exactly as much evidence that you are a troll as you have provided that anyone else is a troll.
Trigger warning for the attention challenged: this message may be tl; dr. You’ve been warned!
Mr. Bell writes,
Jill Pyeatt lied: “Oh, I just remembered: Jim’s the one who wrote to Warren, complaining that Paulie and I refused to argue with him anymore. LOL.”
Stop lying, Jill. I complained because I was being obstructed from posting on IPR, and not merely on a single thread,
I have been forwarded the exchange in question. And Jim said nothing whatsoever about being “obstructed from posting” much less showed any evidence thereof.
Jim Bell’s initial complaint to Mr. Redlich:
“I think your project, IPR, has been taken over (presumably by allowing volunteers) by PC (politically correct) people, who have abused their authority. Their current story is that i have been “trolling”, but you will notice that on this topic I was the first to post; then a few of them showed up, eventually making false accusations of “racism”.”
Everything else in his message had to do with why Mr. Bell did not agree with various comments by various commenters who also serve as moderators here. There was nothing about any messages being obstructed or deleted.
Mr. Bell then went on to say “Paulie has the responsibility to defend his abusive actions” without saying what those were, other than expressing disagreement with Mr. Bell in terms that perhaps Mr. Bell found triggered him and/or violated his safe space.
Mr. Bell then provided a proposed remedy for the alleged but vague “abuses of authority”: “If things could be arranged that none of the people you mentioned participated in the discussions, things would be much better. That’s the problem! They have two roles, and they are allowing their behavior towards others to be affected by their abuse of authority. “ However, he failed to explain where Mr. Redlich is supposed to find unpaid staff who are motivated to serve as unbiased discussion monitors, without being allowed to participate in the discussion themselves.
As far as evidence that anyone at IPR abused any authority Jim Bell then wrote:
“I think it’s fascinating that Paulie has ‘officially’ put me on his ‘ignore’ list,[…]
It is currently said that Leftists want to shut down debate. Paulie can, of course, choose not to debate me personally, […] . But he is being mighty petulant about it.”
As fas as I can see, Mr. Bell appears to have been arguing that ignoring him is tantamount to shutting down debate.
Mr. Bell sent several other messages, all of which consisted of people disagreeing with him in terms that he personally found to be triggering. For example, Jed Ziggler wrote
“Saying I was with them had less to do with this particular incident, and more to do with the overall point about police violence against people of color, and the filthy little white supremacist righty copsuckers like Jim who defend them.”
And Jill Pyeatt wrote
““… It’s because all you do here is argue, and you contribute little but racism..”
Again, however, Jed and Jill were just expressing their personal views in these instances; there is no evidence that they censored anything Jim wrote as far as I can see.
Jim then followed up:
“Dear Mr. Redlich,
I wonder if you realize that your lack of serious response to my complaint about Paulie Frankel and others in control of IPR strongly suggests not only their guilt, but your knowledge of their guilt, as well as your unwillingness to do anything about their guilt. Show me that I’m wrong to come to this logical conclusion.
Jim Bell”
And again several days later:
“Warren, I’m still waiting for you to act to address my objections to the misconduct of your volunteer staff. Have you given up the pretense of running an unbiased discussion area, one where users won’t be abused for their political thoughts. “
Note that Mr. Bell’s complaint here is that he was being triggered by what he considered to be abusive comments that violated his safe space, not any allegation that he was being censored.
The last message from this exchange that was forwarded to me was from Mr. Bell:
“I am hereby accusing your staff of LIBEL. You say you are a “hands off” boss. That works only as long as you don’t get sued. I will give them, and you, an opportunity to address this accusation. Your response, or lack of it, will incriminate both you and your staff. If you fail to respond, I will publicly cite this as evidence that you are knowingly allowing your staff to libel users of your system, IPR.
Jim Bell”
So, here we have Mr. Bell claiming some kind of entitlement over private property (in this case this website) to have an “unbiased” forum where the volunteer staff have to treat him with respect, even if they don’t think he deserves any. Although nothing whatsoever compels Mr. Bell to participate in the discussions here and no one has charged him a penny to do so, he is in the messages above threatening legal action if the discussion is not conducted as he feels it should be. And, at least at one point, he does in fact appear to be making the claim that ignoring him is tantamount to “shutting down debate,” although he hedges his bets on that particular claim by grudgingly admitting that people have the right to do so. And contrary to what he claims now, at no point in this exchange did Mr. Bell make the claim, much less provide evidence, that he was in any way “censored” by having any of his comments blocked or removed (although – need I add? – privately owned websites do in fact have the right to do that as well).
If anyone other than Mr. Bell has made it this far hopefully they will agree that in the above exchange Mr. Bell conducted himself as the very worst sort of “crybully” as he frequently accuses others of being, running to the website owner and then threatening to run to the government courts because some people were disrespectful to him, ignored him, and (he now claims, but did not then,) perhaps blocked or removed some of his comments on a privately owned website that doesn’t charge him anything whatsoever and does not compel him to ever visit or comment.
This paragraph shouldn’t be in italics:
The only libertarian “argument” is that decisions about private property should be made by the owners of that property, which is what HB 2 calls for. By calling for its repeal (and remaining silent on 7056), the NC LP and its defenders are calling for a return to 7056, where the local government usurps private property rights.
The paragraph with the bolded word “libertarian” shouldn’t be italicized, as it is my response, not a quote.
Damn the inability to edit posts.
You want a “succinct and logical” response? Funny, I’ve been trying to get one of those from the NC LP defenders for this entire thread. But, since (unlike them) I’m not here to waste time with bullshit, I’ll give you what you want.
Please provide an example of where anyone you don’t believe to be a genuine libertarian claimed to be a libertarian of any kind, anywhere in this thread.
Scroll up. Every time anyone says the NC LP “got it right” they are disputing my claim that the NC LP “got it wrong” from a libertarian standpoint. Whether they claim to be a member of the LP is irrelevant to me. They are distorting libertarian philosophy, thus promoting fake libertarianism. That makes them impostors.
Some people did say that local governments should not be interfered with in controlling their own city or county facilities by the state government…
And I explicitly agreed: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/nc-libertarians-say-repeal-hb-2/#comment-1353985
…that there is an argument to be made that even in cases where cities and counties abuse their own powers the proper remedy is not to turn to an even higher and more remote level of government…
The only libertarian “argument” is that decisions about private property should be made by the owners of that property, which is what HB 2 calls for. By calling for its repeal (and remaining silent on 7056), the NC LP and its defenders are calling for a return to 7056, where the local government usurps private property rights.
…that some people who frequently make a similar point about local control in various matters of contention between state and federal governments fail to apply their own logic in this case…
As I have pointed out roughly 1,000 times, the personal views of Lew Rockwell (or anyone else) have absolutely zero relevance to the question of whether the NC LP took the correct libertarian position.
…and that there are other unrelated problems with HB 2.
Which I have never disputed.
Perhaps I missed someone actually arguing that portions of ordnance 7056 that applied to private businesses are compatible with fundamentalist libertarianism. If so, can you please point to what comment(s) you keep referring to?
Every person who has said the NC LP “got it right” from a libertarian standpoint, or who disagreed with this comment: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/nc-libertarians-say-repeal-hb-2/#comment-1354915
So, I will ask again the same question I have been asking for this entire thread:
Is there any reason why the NC LP couldn’t have applauded the clearly libertarian part of HB 2, while still noting that they had a problem with the other part? Wouldn’t that have been far better than arguing that since the law isn’t perfect, it should be repealed in its entirety, especially since the alternative (the local Charlotte law) is far, far worse, from a libertarian perspective?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to reciprocate and give me a “succinct and logical response” to that question?
Ralph Gordon said:
“Jim: “Sorry, but you need to try again. My opinions are different than yours. That doesn’t make me a “troll”.
“I don’t need to do a damn thing.”
Well, if you’re going to accuse ME of being a “troll”, and expect to be believed by anyone intellectually honest, you will have to show why my actions qualify under a reasonable definition of the word “troll”. I already went through the Wikipedia definition of “troll”, and nothing appeared to apply. At the same time, there is an obvious explanation why you called me a “troll”: You simply disagreed with my opinion, but couldn’t challenge or disprove it. At that point, your childish reaction of calling me a “troll” makes perfect sense.
Jeff Cottonwood: “More tl; dr from jim. But then again nobody was talking to him, as the comment was addressed at langa. ”
No, Brainless Fool Jeff Cottonwood. My recent comment was not ADDRESSED to langa: It simply QUOTED langa. Too bad you can’t make that simple distinction, something I would easily have understood 12+ years before I received my college degree. No wonder you make so many other intellectual errors.
The reason it is quite clear YOU are the troll is that you continually feel you must make snarky, inappropriate comments were EVEN YOU admit your foolish reaction was “tl;dr”. If you don’t have the respect of even reading what somebody said, then clearly you shouldn’t respond. You are adding nothing to the discussion.
More tl; dr from jim. But then again nobody was talking to him, as the comment was addressed at langa. Perhaps langa could do a better job of providing a succinct and logical response. Given langa’s history of word twisting games above I am not very optimistic on that score but maybe langa can do it. As for jim, he’ll keep writing overly long responses and I’ll continue not reading them.
Jeff cottonwood said:
“libertarian impostors” Please provide an example of where anyone you don’t believe to be a genuine libertarian claimed to be a libertarian of any kind, anywhere in this thread.”
Actually, I noticed that most/all of the trolls were careful NOT to explicitly claim they are “libertarian”. But the subject of this thread is the NC LP position in regard to HB 2. NOT whether HB 2 is proper or desireable, without regard to libertarian principles. But other than merely (apparently) coming down on the side of being “anti-HB-2), nobody explained why (all of) HB-2 was inconsistent with libertarianism. And nobody has (so far) defended Ordinance 7056. 7056 is what made a portion of HB 2 seem to be necessary.
““explain why refusing to stand up for private property rights is the “correct” libertarian position.””
“Yet another strawman argument. Please scroll up and find where anyone made such an argument. ”
No, it’s what “You Don’t Say” that counts. (which, BTW, was the name of a 1960’s game show. The contestants tried to get their partner to state a word, based on clues not containing that word.) The NC LP was specifically and publicly choosing NOT to defend the individual building-owners’ right to decide for themselves the bathroom policy. By FAILING to stand up for those people, the NC LP was implicitly ‘refusing to stand up for private property rights’.
So, if you are unwilling to challenge langa’s assertion, you have implicitly conceded it, if you haven’t made the contrary argument.
“Some people did say that local governments should not be interfered with in controlling their own city or county facilities by the state government,”
In certain cases, that may very well be a proper position to take, depending on the other facts. But most true libertarians I know would prefer NO government to make decisions “controlling their own city or county facilities”. Statists, IOW people who believe that government should control things, would disagree.
” that there is an argument to be made that even in cases where cities and counties abuse their own powers the proper remedy is not to turn to an even higher and more remote level of government,”
No doubt in the 1950’s and 60’s, plenty of states and counties (mostly in the South) could have argued that the States shouldn’t (initially) force them to discriminate, or (later) force them to not discriminate. But their arguments would likely not have been based on libertarian principles.
“.. that some people who frequently make a similar point about local control in various matters of contention between state and federal governments fail to apply their own logic in this case,”
Your claim sounds like a vaguely-stated “strawman argument”. “Some people…” Who are those people? Exactly what is their argument? Could it be that you’re ignoring relevant specifics?
” and that there are other unrelated problems with HB 2.”
Actually, I think just about all of us are saying there _are_ unrelated problems with HB-2. Nobody, except possibly for Don Grundmann, would prefer that NONE of HB-2 be withdrawn.
” Perhaps I missed someone actually arguing that portions of ordnance 7056 that applied to private businesses are compatible with fundamentalist libertarianism.”
I don’t think anyone on this thread has made that claim. Quite the opposite. 7056 specifically says that control over private-business bathroom policy should no longer be in the hands of the individual building-owners, and must instead be in the hands of local government. What libertarian would say , or agree with, THAT?!? It’s clearly pushing government control in an area that has (apparently) been rather free of government control.
” If so, can you please point to what comment(s) you keep referring to?”
None of that kind! But what’s your point?
Langa, you have made some excellent points about how the NC LP’s announcement differs from our platform. I think I’m just weary of this topic because I’ve spent way too much time on Facebook about it ( I have a severe Facebook time-suck problem. Many of you know that!). I’m also weary because of all the infighting among Libertarians about which Presidential candidate is best/worst/planning on destroying the party. Oh yeah, I have a severe IRS problem. Maybe I’m just too grouchy to be online anymore.
As a small business owner, I DO value property rights. I also value the right for someone to visit a restroom in peace. So, there’s nothing I can contribute that hasn’t been said by someone before.
langa said:
“I have no intention of dropping this subject until the libertarian impostors on this thread either admit that the NC LP’s position is wrong (from a libertarian standpoint), or explain why refusing to stand up for private property rights is the “correct” libertarian position. As I said, IPR is not a “safe space” for left-authoritarians who are trying to ideologically hijack the LP. When they knock it off and go back to the Green Party (or wherever they came from), I’ll be happy to let this thread die.”
langa is quite correct. It is very important to get libertarian philosophy, and thus policy, correct. To do that, discussion is quite necessary. Genuine libertarians occasionally get it wrong; newbies more so, and people pretending to be libertarians (both those of the left, and right) much more frequently do so. As langa pointed out, the trolls on this thread seem to be pushing the ‘left-authoritarian’ angle.
Jill Pyeatt is certainly welcome to not participate. But, she shouldn’t have thrown bones to the trolls, thus signalling her sympathies, and then pretend that opponents to those trolls are somehow misbehaving by continuing the discussion. THAT constitutes an authoritarian reaction.
I think it’s obvious that the LP NC deliberately put out a misleading press release, implying that their only proper dispute was with HB-2. It is proper to oppose HB-2, or at least a portion of it, but to fail to concede that Charlotte Ordinance 7056 disrupted the situation (a solution in search of a non-existent problem) can only be intended to pander to the PC’s. The most obvious, simple solution would be to remove both 7056 and HB 2, yet so far nobody here is trying to explain why that wouldn’t be better than we have today.
“libertarian impostors”
Please provide an example of where anyone you don’t believe to be a genuine libertarian claimed to be a libertarian of any kind, anywhere in this thread.
“explain why refusing to stand up for private property rights is the “correct” libertarian position.”
Yet another strawman argument. Please scroll up and find where anyone made such an argument. Some people did say that local governments should not be interfered with in controlling their own city or county facilities by the state government, that there is an argument to be made that even in cases where cities and counties abuse their own powers the proper remedy is not to turn to an even higher and more remote level of government, that some people who frequently make a similar point about local control in various matters of contention between state and federal governments fail to apply their own logic in this case, and that there are other unrelated problems with HB 2. Perhaps I missed someone actually arguing that portions of ordnance 7056 that applied to private businesses are compatible with fundamentalist libertarianism. If so, can you please point to what comment(s) you keep referring to?
Jim got one thing right, Jill. You shouldn’t feed the trolls. If you agree with me that he is the troll, you should stop feeding him.
Jill, I already explained why this subject is very important. In case you missed it, it’s here:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/nc-libertarians-say-repeal-hb-2/#comment-1355545
I have no intention of dropping this subject until the libertarian impostors on this thread either admit that the NC LP’s position is wrong (from a libertarian standpoint), or explain why refusing to stand up for private property rights is the “correct” libertarian position. As I said, IPR is not a “safe space” for left-authoritarians who are trying to ideologically hijack the LP. When they knock it off and go back to the Green Party (or wherever they came from), I’ll be happy to let this thread die.
Jill Pyeatt lied: “Oh, I just remembered: Jim’s the one who wrote to Warren, complaining that Paulie and I refused to argue with him anymore. LOL.”
Stop lying, Jill. I complained because I was being obstructed from posting on IPR, and not merely on a single thread, apparently because I was shellacking somebody in an argument. That obstruction eventually went away, AFTER I complained to Warren, not before. Thus, somebody abused his authority. You probably know who it was. Did you know that, then?
So, now you should establish that “… complaining that Paulie and I refused to argue with him anymore.”
I don’t think you can.
Oh, I just remembered: Jim’s the one who wrote to Warren, complaining that Paulie and I refused to argue with him anymore. LOL.
Same here. I’ll spend my time more productively.
I don’t need to do a damn thing.
Ralph Gordon said: “The only troll I see in this thread is Jim. Gotta give it to him though, he sure is persistent, and loves to see his “thoughts” in (endless) print.”
You need to explain why my possessing opinions in opposition to those of others constitute being a “troll”. Be specific. According to the Wikipedia article “Internet trolling”, it states:
“In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.”
I don’t think I “start[ed] an argument: Mine was the first comment on this thread. Did I “upset people”? Maybe. PC’s tend to dislike opposing viewpoints. Were my comments “inflammatory”? You tell me.
Were my comments “extraneous”? I don’t think so. Were they “off-topic”? No, they wen’t. Did I “intent[ionally] provok[e] people into an emotional response? Don’t think so. Did I “disrupt[] normal on-topic discussion”? Quite the opposite. I think the trolls did that.
Was it “for [my] own amusement”? Nope. I saw a position taken by NC LP that I believed was actually inconsistent with proper Libertarian philosophy, and so far many people (libertarian) seem to agree.
Sorry, but you need to try again. My opinions are different than yours. That doesn’t make me a “troll”.
The only troll I see in this thread is Jim. Gotta give it to him though, he sure is persistent, and loves to see his “thoughts” in (endless) print.
For the record, the Wikipedia article “Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act” [ the official name of North Carolina HB 2] includes this paragraph:
“Sentiment[edit]
A majority of North Carolina residents are opposed to House Bill 2, and agree that it has negatively impacted the state’s economy and public image.[17][18][19][20] 56% of North Carolinians, however, agree with the provision barring transgender individuals from using bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity.[19][20] Residents of rural communities within the state have been more supportive of House Bill 2 than those of urban areas.[21][21]” [end of portion quoted]
There is a lesson to be learned here. The approximate position that I claim should be taken by libertarians (and Libertarians) is already taken by the majority of North Carolinians: Oppose HB 2 as a whole, but like the provision “agree[ing] with the provision barring transgender individuals from using bathrroms corresponding to their gender identity”.
Strictly speaking, of course, I have nothing against a building owner (of private property) choosing to have a bathroom policy ALLOWING a transgender person to use whichever bathroom he/she wishes. (or any other articulable policy he might choose.) But I believe that this must be the choice of the building owner, NOT the decision of the government (at any level, including local government). I am confident that because 56% of the public wants things one way, the large majority of private-building owners will follow their requests.
So far, the trolls infesting this threat have done a VERY poor job countering the idea that people should be able to do with their property what they wish to do. Just as langa has repeatedly pointed out. The trolls have also failed to explain (even as a backup position) why the government shouldn’t adopt the position preferred by 56% of the citizenry of North Carolina: Prohibiting transgenders from using other than their biological reality.
(I hate to use the term “identity”: Google ‘identity definition’ and you find as the first definition:
“i·den·ti·ty ???den(t)?d?/ noun
1. the fact of being who or what a person or thing is.
“he knows the identity of the bombers”
synonyms: name, ID; More”)
Notice that it says, “what a person…is”.
It DOESN’T say, “What a person WISHES he is”, “…HOPES he is”, “…WANTS to be”. ‘…CLAIMS to be”. “…PRETENDS to be”. Or anything else of that kind. The people who use the terms “identity”, or “identify as”, do the English language a major disservice.
You do what you want, Jim.
Jill Pyeatt said:
“Yes, I know Russ Woodall. He is indeed a Libertarian.”
Sorry, Jill but after your stunt of feeding the trolls, you’re just about the last person I’d believe could credibly label one of these guys as a “libertarian”. I’ll done enough searches to cast great doubt about whether nearly all of these guys have a genuine existence outside IPR, and more specifically off the HB 2 topic. They simply popped into existence when they were needed, for “troll purposes”.
“James Welby”? Do a time-limited (up to 3/1/2016) on ‘”James Welby” libertarian’, and what do YOU find?
Yes Jim. There’s no libertarian opposition to HB2. There’s no LPNC majority that voted on this position. I am actually running LPNC out of my mother’s basement, as there is no LP in NC. Brilliant work, detective. Now get back in line, Nurse Ratched says it’s time for your meds.
Does “Russ Woodall even exist?” Does Jeff Cottonwood even exist? Does John Byrd even exist? Does Roy Weller even exist? Google-search these guys, with and without “Libertarian”
I think we have one troll here, operating under many names. thanks for admitting that very few people believe that opposing HB 2 is a genuine Libertarian position, guys.
Is that the best you can do?
Yes, I know Russ Woodall. He is indeed a Libertarian.
Does “Russ Woodall even exist?”
I did a time-limited Google search for ‘”Russ Woodall” libertarian’. Just a very small number of results, most of which were from IPR,
Then, I did a Google search for ‘”Russ Woodall” democrat’. Substantially more results, but again nothing relevant prior to about March 1, 2016.
Is “Russ Woodall” even a real person? Or perhaps an adopted name for this specific trolling of IPR? Looks like it.
Does anybody know who “Russ Woodall” is? Yes, we already know he’s a troll, but some of us want to learn more about his trollishness.
For once, Jim’s comment is not too long to read, but it still makes no sense.
Did somebody try to split this thread?
“I am SOOO tired of this topic! Can we talk about other things, such as trying to get Obama to close Guantanamo like he promised? Or, maybe we can brainstorm some way to keep more “boots on the ground” from going into Syria.”
Excellent point Jill. I fully agree.
Jill Pyeatt said:
“I am SOOO tired of this topic!”
Of course you want to change the subject! But that’s because you screwed up, above, feeding the pseudo-libertarian trolls. You, if anyone, should be ashamed of not coming down hard on people who pretend that the actions of LP NC were consistent with Libertarian philosophy.
“Can we talk about other things, such as trying to get Obama to close Guantanamo like he promised? Or, maybe we can brainstorm some way to keep more “boots on the ground” from going into Syria.””
On different threads, you can talk about all sorts of different things. It sounds like you simply don’t want ANYONE talking about LP NC and their statements about HB 2. But THAT is the title of this thread! Or have you forgotten?!? Anyone who has any respect for compartmentalization of IPR would recognize that different threads are for different discussions. Sure there can be some overlap, but you should NEVER use the existence of other issues to justify NOT talking about something. Jill, you just did precisely that!
Even the trolls claim that the issue is dead. But I wonder: Do they mean that the country should no longer be talking about/complaining about NC law HB-2? Probably not! They merely mean that they are being clobbered here, in regards to what the proper libertarian position on NC’s stated position in regards to HB-2 is.
I don’t think that’s a dead issue, either nationally (regardless of libertarianism) or just in regards to libertarianism. I just did a Google search on ‘HB 2’, limiting the time from April 30 until today. It’s still a very hot issue. Do the pseudo-libertarian trolls that Jill Pyeatt fed a couple days ago publicly denounce that subject as a continuing area of discussion and dispute? I don’t think so!
AMcCarrick:
“It’s really this simple:
Under private property rights the government cannot force a private place of business to implement a certain policy with in the confines of their private property.”
Tell that to the pseudo-libertarian trolls infesting this thread recently. Well, I guess you now already have. It will be interesting to see their replies.
“In the inverse, the government cannot impose restrictions on people’s individual rights in public places.”
Quite true. One problem, however, is that the trolls seem to re-define what “public places” really mean. They think that any property generally accessible to the public (ordinarily, open to the public) is a “public place”, and so (falsely) conclude that government may make the rules for it.
“Thus private business CAN impose discriminatory practices (even going so far as refusing to serve an individual for any reason), the government CANNOT. Once in the private sector individuals are free to do what ever so long as they don’t inflict physical harm on another.”
Also, as a libertarian, I believe that it is not the proper function of government to “correct” or “ameliorate” the effect of discrimination by individuals, companies, and corporations. I believe, for instance, that if a substantial fraction of an identifiable group or class engage in misconduct (or tolerate the misconduct of others in their group), the rest of the population can choose to exclude them.
For a specific example, look at the 2013 Pew poll of Muslims in Muslim-majority or Muslim-heavy countries, and specifically questions like “Are suicide bombings ever justified”, or “Are ‘honor killings’ justified if a family member disgraces the family”, or “Is it okay to kill a person for renouncing Islam? Etc.
I believe there is a dramatic difference (not merely quantitative, but also qualitative) between a religion where, say, 50% or more of the population agrees “Yes”) with one or more of these questions, and another religion where maybe 0.01% or 0.10% agree: Examples of the latter type: Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. The problem isn’t merely that more (Muslim) people say “yes”, but that vastly more people seem to sympathize with, or at least tolerate, the “Yes”-answering population.
For that reason, I see nothing wrong with individuals, companies, and corporations shunning Muslims. As a practical matter, the number of Muslims in America who seem to have spontaneously attacked co-workers in there place of employment, suggests that these are (or could be) unusually dangerous people. Not that nobody else ever does that, but instead, the probability of such an attack seems far higher for Muslims in America, versus non-Muslims in America. Why should the non-Muslim public tolerate such an increased risk?
Feminists have their own agenda, which is obviously different than mine.
I am SOOO tired of this topic! Can we talk about other things, such as trying to get Obama to close Guantanamo like he promised? Or, maybe we can brainstorm some way to keep more “boots on the ground” from going into Syria.
Right now the federal government is legislating gender through antidiscrimination laws and forcing public and private facilities to allow people to decide their gender and which private facilities they want. It’s getting so bad not only are they forcing this on bathrooms, shower rooms, womens shelters, etc. They even are starting to let sex criminals who’ve raped and murdered women declare they are women so they can be transferred to womens prisons! Is the NC party going to oppose that??
Here’s one of many sites citing articles about what women are being subjected to compiled mostly by feminists, as well as a study showing tansgender males to females have same crime rate as non-trans men, which I think we can assume includes sex crimes.
https://allisonslaw.wordpress.com/ (Lists hundreds of crimes since 1974 by year or category)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885 (Swedish study on transsexuals showing same males have crime rate as straight males)
Right now the federal government is legislating gender through antidiscrimination laws and forcing public and private facilities to allow people to decide their gender and which private facilities they want. It’s getting so bad not only are they forcing this on bathrooms, shower rooms, womens shelters, etc. They even are starting to let sex criminals who’ve raped and murdered women declare they are women so they can be transferred to womens prisons! Is the NC party going to oppose that??
Here’s just a few lists of articles about what women are being subjected to compiled mostly by feminists:
https://allisonslaw.wordpress.com/ (Lists hundreds of crimes since 1974 by year or category)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885 (Swedish study on transsexuals showing same males have crime rate as straight males)
https://autogynephiliatruth.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/male-trannies-18-times-more-likely-than-real-women-to-be-convicted-of-violent-crime/
https://nametheproblem.com/tag/transgender/
https://autogynephiliatruth.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/the-threat-to-women-and-girls-presented-by-transgender-bathroom-bills/
https://bugbrennan.com/tag/male-violence/
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/category/crime-2/
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/category/violence/
https://thepoliticsofgender.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/trans-male-violence/
https://theysaythisneverhappens.wordpress.com/
http://violentreceipts.tumblr.com/ violent threats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzwMJAFWLtQ (“Women decide for yourselves” video lists crimes)
http://appropriately-inappropriate.tumblr.com/post/143065193655/the-tip-of-the-iceberg-please-add-to-this-list (List of crimes)
http://violenttransarchives.tumblr.com/
https://autogynephiliatruth.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/double-standard-mass-media-reports-conceal-rampant-crime-by-male-transgenderites/
(Double-standard: Mass media reports conceal rampant crime by male transgenderites)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/twenty-stories-proving-targets-pro-transgender-bathroom-policy-danger-women-children/
[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/transgender-woman-male-persona-serial-killer/story?id=22959423]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6138325/Transsexual-prisoner-wins-right-to-be-in-female-prison.html]
[http://www.crimelibrary.com/blog/article/the-transgender-prisoner-and-the-eighth-amendment/index.html]
[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/23/1112262/–Male-rapist-put-into-women-s-prison]
[http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/zodiac-wife-curses-fate-weird-killer-couple-separated-prison-article-1.645709]
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/transgender-equality/publications/?u=1
Aug 2015
Written evidence submitted by British Association of Gender Identity Specialists
to the Transgender Equality Inquiry
Why trans want in.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19532.pdf PDF regarding above.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm
crime statistics, probably doesn’t have anything
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/12/gender_critical_trans_women_the_apostates_of_the_trans_rights_movement.html
Detransition list
As far as “declaring victory” I said what I had to say much earlier in the thread, and explained more than adequately enough for anyone who cares and is not into playing word twisting games. I am not interested in playing those games and won’t debate the people playing them, who seem to have an endless amount of time on their hands. I don’t give a shit who gets the last word, lol. Grow up already. I’ll keep participating as time allows but will not be playing your games. I may occasionally point my finger and laugh at your playground antics or shake my head at the pathetic sight thereof but that’s about it.
“For one, fascists believe in censorship and using violence against their enemies and yet it is the European establishment, mainstream political parties, and the radical Left that are using both to try to temper or stop the rise of these various nationalist/populist parties that are growing in those countries via popularity and in votes.”
Just wait until they get in power. Yes they are fascist.
LOL, jim thinks I’m debating him. What an idiot. I wouldn’t waste my time. Actually, I’ve only skimmed maybe 10% of his endless spewage in this thread. As for the Eurofascists, Cody, I am not going to whitewash them in any way shape or form, and will continue to call them what they are. And yes that includes Trump, who is just an American version of the same thing.
It’s really this simple:
Under private property rights the government cannot force a private place of business to implement a certain policy with in the confines of their private property.
In the inverse, the government cannot impose restrictions on people’s individual rights in public places.
Thus private business CAN impose discriminatory practices (even going so far as refusing to serve an individual for any reason), the government CANNOT. Once in the private sector individuals are free to do what ever so long as they don’t inflict physical harm on another.
“Looking at Europe we see the authoritarian right is rising again there as well.”
This new right that’s on the rise in Europe is both Populist & Nationalist in the original sense of such definitions while some aspects of it might have authoritarian leanings- though it is not authoritarian per se, and it especially is not fascist by the majority of the characteristics that define the word.
For one, fascists believe in censorship and using violence against their enemies and yet it is the European establishment, mainstream political parties, and the radical Left that are using both to try to temper or stop the rise of these various nationalist/populist parties that are growing in those countries via popularity and in votes. But of course such efforts are in vain.
The emerging political climate in Europe is not necessarily a bad thing however; many of these anti-establishment parties are sincere in their defense of their country’s democratic institutions and the current social and cultural climate of secularism, certain individual liberties, and social acceptance of alternative lifestyles and trends.
Plus, as being a believer in organic politics and how the political-social norms and standards vary from region/country-to-country; I feel that some of those political parties are the moral comparison to the Libertarian Party in our country, and are the best solution right now for many of these European nations that are facing the current challenges with the refugee crises, government corruption, and Islamic terrorism -until such nations and their societies become ready at a later date to adopt and embrace a free Libertarian society… Which unfortunately is generations, or perhaps a century away from becoming socially and politically accepted within such nations and regions of Europe, and elsewhere.
Fortunately for the United States however, I believe mainstream society here is getting very close to embracing the philosophy and ideology of Libertarianism on a mass scale; it will happen here in due time.
My post at: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/05/libertarian-party-outright-libertarians-to-meet-in-orlando
What is your position in regard to North Carolina law HB 2, and especially in light of Charlotte Ordinance 7056? Do you believe that it is the proper position of Libertarians to protect the rights of private property owners, including individuals, companies, and corporations?
There has been an extensive discussion of this at: independentpoliticalreport[dotcom]/2016/04/nc-libertarians-say-repeal-hb-2
I believe that this discussion has included many pseudo-libertarian trolls, but I hope to hear your point of view.
Freudian – The picture leads to access to my article describing the attack of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement on the children of our nation and how we must ban the mutilation of children into so-called ” transgenders ” as a first step to save our nation from the attack upon it by the Religion of Humanism/Satanism.
The mutilation of children is a key element of the attempt to replace the Christian foundations of the nation with their Humanist/Satanist opposite; part of the task which the Plantation Masters of the nation have assigned to their Libertarian Party sock puppet as demonstrated by the attack against HB 2 in North Carolina.
The LP will, on orders from their Plantation Master Controllers, flap their jaws about individual rights but only for sodomites while Christians will be denied their religious freedom to follow their conscience.
It is a combination of ” Animal Farm ” and ” 1984 ” where some people ( sodomites ) are more equal than others ( Christians ) who will be attacked by the LP EVERY TIME.
The LP may have started out championing Libertarian principles but as the religious war between Christianity and Humanism/Satanism becomes more open and obvious the LP is abandoning its pretense ( coming out of the closet ) and showing its true colors, its anti-Christian religious belief foundation, as a Plantation Masters hammer to force tyranny upon the citizens.
It is demonstrating its priorities of which individual freedom does not exist for one religion, Christianity, but will be championed for those who bow down to and worship Humanism/Satanism.
Not to change the subject, but am I the only one who finds it strange that a huge photo of Caitlyn Jenner pops up whenever I click on Don Grundmann, D.C.’s name?
Roy Weller said: “Jim appears to be a lost case. I wonder if anyone even bothers to read his overly long comments, or for that matter whether he cares if anyone does or not. Must be that he has nothing else to do all day, every day.”
In my experience, people who complain about the amount of time and effort a debate opponent uses to craft responses to them, and in fact people whose arguments are getting stomped, and they cannot disprove anything the other person said.
Hint: Have you ever heard of the phrase, “declare victory and go home”? YOU’ve got the “declare victory” part down pat. Problem, you do not seem to be able to do the “go home” part. The reason is that you have no valid argument to make; you’ve NEVER had a valid argument to make. But you are hoping some day to make it look like you had the last word. You can’t even LOOK like you are “declaring victory and going home” if you stick around and persist claiming you are right. So just go away.
Must suck to be Roy Weller.
Here’s an idea: How about explaining to me why the NC LP refuses to stand up for the rights of private property owners? (Here’s a hint: The answer has nothing to do with Lew Rockwell.)
The next time you “repeat” the truth will be the first time. In the meanwhile keep twisting words, it seems to be working for you so far.
And yes, I’ll continue to repeat the truth, for as long as it takes.
Eventually, you’ll figure out that IPR is not a “safe space” for you libertarian impostors.
Trump has a real chance of becoming his party’s nominee and becoming president. Sanders does not. I’d be a bit careful about turning my back on his fascist movement thinking its danger is in the past. Looking at Europe we see the authoritarian right is rising again there as well.
Yes, by all means, look at the right-authoritarian Trump. Then look at a left-authoritarian like Sanders. Trump’s supporters are mostly middle age to old, while Sanders’ crowds are composed of the youth — the very same ones, in many cases, who have undergone the collegiate brainwashing that I referred to earlier. In other words, Trump’s appeal will continue to slowly diminish, as his older crowd dies off, while Sanders’ strain of authoritarianism will continue to thrive for decades — if we don’t stop it.
Oh, and look — 3 more responses from Byrd, and still no answers to the same 2 questions that he has been dodging for the entire thread. What a shock!
Guys like Byrd are just the mirror image of guys like Root — libertarian impostors out to hijack the LP.
“right-authoritarianism is slowly dying, ”
That, however, is utter nonsense, look at Donald Trump or the right of the fascist right in Europe. Right authoritarianism if anything is on the rise and all the more dangerous because they are losing the culture wars. And the decades of right-fusionism have made many “libertarians” susceptible to making alliances with such putrid scum.
I accidentally did read langa’s last paragraph. I agree with the following:
“For decades, libertarians have had to deal with right-authoritarians trying to co-opt our movement, and unfortunately that is still a problem (look at Petersen, with his ridiculous appeal to “fusionism”). “
“Wow, jim is truly the energizer bunny of endless bullshit.”
Well in all fairness… he has stiff competition for that title from langa and Don Grundman from DC.
Jill (and anyone else reading this who isn’t a troll),
The reason I have spent so much time on this thread has very little to do with this specific issue, except insofar as it represents part of the ongoing effort by some “libertarians” (both big and small L) to slowly and gradually morph libertarianism into a kind of left-authoritarianism.
This hijacking of the LP (and the libertarian movement in general) largely relies on the ability to obscure certain important distinctions that are a key part of the libertarian philosophy. One of the most important of these distinctions is the one between private property and “public” property. By framing the debate around “civil rights” (in this case, LGBT rights), they hope to distract from the real issue, which is property rights. This is very similar to the claims advanced by Gary Johnson and other advocates of “bakery slavery” — that the “right” to not be discriminated against somehow trumps the rights of private property owners to set the rules regarding their own property.
In this particular case, the issue is further complicated by the fact that the law in question is a state law that overturns a local law, which brings up the question of decentralization. This gives the “libertarian” impostors yet another opportunity to deflect attention away from the real issue (private property rights) and toward the red herring of decentralization. This is why they have spent almost this entire thread arguing about Lew Rockwell’s position on “states rights” — even though it has absolutely nothing to do with this case!
For decades, libertarians have had to deal with right-authoritarians trying to co-opt our movement, and unfortunately that is still a problem (look at Petersen, with his ridiculous appeal to “fusionism”). However, we are now facing the same sort of threat from the left-authoritarians, and if anything, this threat is even more dangerous, since right-authoritarianism is slowly dying, while left-authoritarianism is on the rise, as seen by the PC authoritarianism that is being taught on college campuses. The only way to stop this same sort of thing from happening to the LP (and the libertarian movement in general) is to call it out, and refuse to compromise our basic principles, such as private property rights, freedom of association, and the key distinction between private property and “public” property — no matter how unpopular those principles might be with the new generation of PC authoritarians.
Jill P. – The reason why you don’t know any women against men in the womens restroom/shower, and you make the inane comment above, is because you don’t know any women – yourself included.
REAL women; not fake/defective women; i.e.; females; inherently/automatically know that ANY male ( not man ) using the womens bathroom/shower is sick. Such REAL women will AUTOMATICALLY protect their daughters from such freaks.
In complete opposition we have feminists/females; i.e.; man haters; who are happy to see males degrade themselves because it confirms how correct their utter contempt of men is.
So of course you are happy to see, and have no problem with, sick males dressing as females and using the men’s room as this is in harmony not only with your contempt for men but especially with your religion of Humanism/Satanism which says that God doesn’t exist and humans create their own gender/reality – the base psychotic motivation of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement and its ” transgender ” psychotic subdivision.
Hence you and your fellow Believers will not lift a finger to protect children, especially girls, as you want to cultivate in them the same pathology which you have – a spitting contempt for men as has been so well documented at TheOtherMcCain.com by Robert Stacy McCain.
It is this base motivation – a burning contempt of men, REAL men, which boils down to their complete hatred of Christianity – that drives the Libertarian Party in its support of the transgender freaks and takes precedence in every situation over individual rights to resist the Sodomite Tyranny; an idea which instantly goes out the window in favor of the REAL purpose and agenda of the LP.
As the LP attack against the bathroom law in North Carolina so well exposes the real purpose of the LP is to take sides with the Humanist/Satanist Religion in its war against Christianity. Everything else is simply a fake window dressing to cover up this fundamental reality.
Wow, jim is truly the energizer bunny of endless bullshit.
Confusedly, Roy Weller said: “Good point from the last link from reason.com”
““It’s a terrible shame that transgender people have to suffer discrimination as a result of the public’s irrational fear. “”
But even Reason.com can be wrong, or at least misinterpreted.
1. Were transgenders “suffering discrimination as a result of the public’s irrational fear” prior to Charlottes’ promulgation of Ordinance 7056? My understanding is that they were not in any way “suffering”. Who says they were?
2. Were (or would they have been, absent the passage of HB2,” suffering “discrimination? If anything, the passage of Ordinance 7056 caused a major problem, not because it tried to regulate bathroom policy for transgenders, but because it provided a major new opportunity for perverts and pedophiles to enter (in a way actually legally enforced by government) any bathroom they chose. THAT would have been a major problem for cis-genders.
3. Will transgenders “suffer discrimination” as a result of the public’s “irrational fear” after the passage of HB2? I’d say that it was the “irrational fear” that transgenders were somebody suffering discrimination prior to Ordinance 7056 that led, in fact, to the passage of 7056 (a mistake), which triggered the NC State Legislature’s imperfect response to the newly-arisen problem (CA– USED by Ordinance 7056) problem.
I am quite confident that reason.com would understand this argument, respond to it appropriately, and agree that their statement was a bit misleading.
Roy Weller said: “Jim appears to be a lost case. I wonder if anyone even bothers to read his overly long comments, or for that matter whether he cares if anyone does or not. Must be that he has nothing else to do all day, every day.”
Why do people like Roy Weller continue to post what I’d call “contentless messages”? That is, a comment which doesn’t in any way advance their own claim, nor defeat the claim(s) of a debate opponent” . It merely purports to be against somebody else, without significant thought inclued within it.)
Must suck to be Roy Weller.
Good point from the last link from reason.com
“It’s a terrible shame that transgender people have to suffer discrimination as a result of the public’s irrational fear. “
An interesting take on the subject:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/26/sow-rape-culture-hyperbole-reap-transgen
(Unfortunately, this system(IPR) has the wacky limitation that if a poster includes more than one URL in a comment, the actual posting is delayed for a “long” period for somebody to actually approve it. If that problem didn’t occur, I’d find and post many URLs about this subject. As it is, however, the only thing I can do is to post one url per comment. Hardly an intelligent use of time and space.
Jim appears to be a lost case. I wonder if anyone even bothers to read his overly long comments, or for that matter whether he cares if anyone does or not. Must be that he has nothing else to do all day, every day.
Jeff Cottonwood said:
“Thanks Jill. As for jim his comment was tl; dr like many others above but like I said on another thread I guess everyone needs a hobby. Still, I’m a little sad for people like jim who have nothing better to do than write book length comments on comment threads. Must suck to be jim. But hey, whatever floats your boat.”
Have you ever heard a word, “metadata”? Data about data.
“Metadata is data that describes other data. Meta is a prefix that in most information technology usages means “an underlying definition or description.” Metadata summarizes basic information about data, which can make finding and working with particular instances of data easier.”
Your statement, above, constitutes a “metaargument”, an argument about arguments.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10503-007-9055-x#page-1
Not particularly interesting.
Must suck to be Jeff Cottonwood.
However, since none of you seem to have the courage to look for it, I myself will look for arguments from people who support HB-2 because they GENUINELY believe that transgenders are, or will be, dangerous. Actually, it’s not my burden of proof to prove that there are “no” people claimining that transgenders are dangerous; it is YOUR burden to prove that there are a significant number (or, certainly, a majority) of people asserting that. NOT merely asserting that OTHER people are asserting that. Follow me on this?
Thanks Jill. As for jim his comment was tl; dr like many others above but like I said on another thread I guess everyone needs a hobby. Still, I’m a little sad for people like jim who have nothing better to do than write book length comments on comment threads. Must suck to be jim. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Jeff Cottonwood: “The comment thread is tl; dr”‘
One of the problems of crying “tl;dr” is that it may seem to excuse you from knowing the background of the discussion, and thus ‘justify’ your making false claims about the facts and law involved. You have just done that, among other offenses.
“but I think NCLP made a wise choice in commenting on the state law”
GREAT! You are quite right here!
” and any issues that people in the county have with the local ordinance should be addressed by the county party”
Notice how you are sneakily implying that just because the state LP party is supposed to comment on HB 2, somehow that means that ONLY the local (county) party should comment on Charlotte Ordinance 7056. You evidently think you’re a much better debater than you really are. Yours is merely a weak diversion from reality.
“. Personally I think that the people who are whipping up a misguided frenzy and hysteria about nonexistent attacks by trans people (presumably against cis women and girls) should be ashamed of themselves, ”
By crying “tl; dr” above, you can pretend you didn’t see my comment that while there is indeed ‘hysteria; about such non-existent attacks, that hysteria is actually being promulgated by the anti-HB-2 crowd. You see, you’ve heard of a “straw-man argument”, right? I think the Anti-HB-2 crowd is actually inventining a mostly fictious “pro-HB 2 person” I think instead that very, very few people who support HB2 do so because they genuinely believe transgenders would misbehave. (If they had believed that, they would have previously raised this issue, prior to the passage of Charlotte Ordinance 7056. They didn’t. In any case, I have heard that transgenders represent only about 0.03% of the public; in fact, that’s one in about 3300 people. Not much of a problem.
Rather, I think they support HB 2 because of the reasons I’ve seen elsewhere, and I quoted above: Pedophiles and perverts greatly outnumber transgenders’ 0.03%. Prior to the passage of Ordinance 7056, they had no arguable reason to be in the ‘wrong’ bathroom. After the passage of 7056, they did. If we estimate that “perverts” make up about 2% of the population (figure pulled out of a hat, but not necessarily very wrong), that 2% outnumbers transgenders’ 0.03% by a factor of about 66x! I think it’s clear that there is a real threat there, and not from transgenders.
But you see, the reason people employ “straw-man arguments” is that it is so much easier to seem to knock-down a fake, phony, weak, and defective argument that you invent yourself, rather than defeat an argument actually constructed by someone who believes the opposite as you do.
Note: I am not saying that NOBODY has ever claimed that transgenders would misbehave in this way. Rather, I am simply pointing out that most of talk of such claims originates from Anti-HB-2 people, constructing their straw-man arguments.
These dishonest-arguers want to make it appear that the only reason pro-HB-2 people support HB-2 is that they believe in that fake, phony, weak and defective argument, ‘transgenders are dangerous’, while I think, instead that this is merely their chosen fiction.
Go ahead, find an example of somebody TRULY, GENUINELY making the claim that transgenders are dangerous, rather than trying to knock down the purported claim of some other un-named individuals. Go ahead, I dare you.
“as they are leading to trans people soiling themselves,”
Is that your invention? There was no problem before Ordinance 7056, BTW.
” living as shut ins,”
I can hear your sad, sad violins playing. Some people by now would have tears in their eyes.
” being attacked in restrooms”
DId that happen before Ordinance 7056? How big a problem was that, for real? Why should it be a bigger problem today?
“, having to move out of state, and or developing serious health problems from “holding it in” too much.”
You’re really piling it on thick!
” The whole thing is ridiculous”
I fully agree that “the whole thing is ridiculous”. There was essentially no problem prior to Charlotte’s passage of Ordinance 7056. And it isn’t even clear that there will be a problem after the passage of HB 2.
” and is being whipped up as a deflection from real issues”
You can say that again! But read above, and you’ll see it’s YOU who are “whipping it up”.
” and because right wingers”
Okay, you are making your true colors clear. It isn’t Libertarians or libertarian policy you are interested in. You just want to defeat “right wingers”. Got it! So why are you here, anyway? There are plenty of discussion areas talking about HB-2 simpliciter (look it up). No need for you to soil this discussion more than it is already muddy.
” are losing on social and cultural issues”
Who was in favor of legalization of pot in the 1970’s through today? Yep, it was the libertarians, NOT (sincerely) the “liberals”. Hint: How many people did Bill Clinton’s amendment to Federal criminal laws in 1993-4 put into prison, unnecessarily? Probably well over one million, although not at all at one time of course.
“and need to constantly whip up new and unfounded fears to boost their votes, donations and other support.
Go away. You make us sick. You have no credible, logical, consistent argument to make. You’re just a PC droid.
Jeff said: “The whole thing is ridiculous and is being whipped up as a deflection from real issues and because right wingers are losing on social and cultural issues and need to constantly whip up new and unfounded fears to boost their votes, donations and other support.”
Very well said, and I agree with you. Shame on those men who are still wasting everyone’s time by going on and on about this.
Women are not afraid of those souls among us who are different. Personally, I’m more afraid of the macho one-up-manship surrounding this issue. On a scale of ridiculous, it’s well above a 10.
The comment thread is tl; dr but I think NCLP made a wise choice in commenting on the state law and any issues that people in the county have with the local ordinance should be addressed by the county party. Personally I think that the people who are whipping up a misguided frenzy and hysteria about nonexistent attacks by trans people (presumably against cis women and girls) should be ashamed of themselves, as they are leading to trans people soiling themselves, living as shut ins, being attacked in restrooms, having to move out of state, and or developing serious health problems from “holding it in” too much. The whole thing is ridiculous and is being whipped up as a deflection from real issues and because right wingers are losing on social and cultural issues and need to constantly whip up new and unfounded fears to boost their votes, donations and other support.
Joey berry: “*The idea is to cut through P.C.B.S. (Politically Correct B.S.) and show the vast majority of people that they are Libertarian at heart; while reminding some Libertarians that sometimes the rights that should be promoted/defended belong to the majority…”
I accessed the Facebook page you cited. However, it repeatedly cited “the North Carolina law”. Actually, there are two North Carolina laws in question, so those statements seem to be ambiguous and thus confusing. For example, you said:
“The Libertarian problem with the law is fairly simple: the law doesn’t allow individuals the right to build unisex Multiple Occupancy bathrooms AND allow people freedom to choose to whether to visit their business or not…”.
That statement may be correct in regards to Charlotte Ordinance 7056: That Ordinance took away (at least, until it was overturned by HB 2) the individual decisions made by building owners in regard to bathroom policy. HB 2, in stark contrast, does not define or restrict bathroom policy at any privately-owned building: It simply guarantees that government cannot force a building owner to have, or not have, some specific bathroom policy.
In this way, we can see that at least the portion of HB 2 that overturned Ordinance 7056 is by far the more “libertarian” law.
Perhaps you would like to revisit your opinions on this matter, in light of this additional information and clarification.
Russ Woodall: “The multiple reports indicate that no transgender individual has ever been arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom, while at least three Republican lawmakers have been arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom.”
Why are you focussing on the issue of Republican lawmakers? The subject here is the correct LIBERTARIAN position in regard to the HB 2. Maybe you simply collect material selected to disparage Republicans. If you are going to troll Libertarian subjects, you really need to adjust your ‘armament’ to include material specific to libertarians. Otherwise, you simply look like a PC thug.
Also, I would like to take the opportunity to suggest that it is a myth that most people who object to Charlotte Resolution 7056 (the law overturned by HB 2), or supported HB 2 did so because they fear misconduct by transgenders. See, for instance, “Read more: http://wwnc.iheart.com/onair/pete-kaliner-46655/getting-clarity-on-north-carolinas-hb2-14569877/#ixzz47Njzrhmk ” In relevant part, it states:
“And despite the media-enabled leftist framing of the issue, the concern among people defending HB2 is not that transgenders are now going to start attacking women in the restrooms. The concern is that predators will use the cover of newly-opened facilities as a means to enter a traditionally safe space for women and children. ”
“Critics of HB2 say there are already laws against assault and so these fears are unfounded. However, this argument only applies after the attack. A woman or child would have to be victimized for this law to be relevant. Absent an attack, the predator is free to move about inside the restrooms and showers of any public facility or private business.”
“And not just predators. Perverts will have a whole new arena in which to operate, as well.”
[End of quote.]
So, it can be easily seen that the anti-HB-2 people are simply inventing the assertion that others claim transgenders will misbehave.
You are the one deflecting. The words above that you have disputed in ridiculous ways speak for themselves. Your attempts to twist them beyond recognition keep falling flat in laughable ways.
Which words are you referring to? The ones you use to try to conflate “civil rights” and “property rights”?
Or maybe you are referring to the invisible words that explain why Rockwell’s personal opinions are somehow relevant to the NC LP’s refusal to support private property rights against state encroachment.
More GOP Lawmakers Arrested For Sexual Misconduct In Bathrooms Than Trans People
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/04/more-gop-lawmakers-arrested-for-sexual-misconduct-in-bathrooms-than-trans-people/
It is Republican lawmakers, and not transgender people, who are the real danger in public bathrooms.
Dead State, Gay Star News, and Friendly Atheist are all reporting that Republican politicians are more of a menace in public bathrooms than transgender people.
The reports are based on an earlier report issued by Dan Avery at News Now Next debunking the myth that transgender people using public bathrooms pose some sort of threat.
The multiple reports indicate that no transgender individual has ever been arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom, while at least three Republican lawmakers have been arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom.
Former U.S. Senator Larry Craig, Florida state Representative Bob Allen, and Mississippi Congressman Jon Hinson were all Republican lawmakers, and were all arrested for sexual misconduct in a public bathroom.
As for the big myth that transgender people using public bathrooms pose some sort of threat, a new report issued by Media Matters cites experts from twelve states – including law enforcement officials, state human rights workers, and sexual assault victims advocates – who debunk the myth that transgender non-discrimination laws have any relation to incidents of sexual assault or harassment in public restrooms.
Article continues at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/04/more-gop-lawmakers-arrested-for-sexual-misconduct-in-bathrooms-than-trans-people/
You are the one deflecting. The words above that you have disputed in ridiculous ways speak for themselves. Your attempts to twist them beyond recognition keep falling flat in laughable ways.
You can dodge and deflect all you want. You still have provided zero justification for the NC LP’s refusal to stand up for the rights of private property owners, and until you do so, I will continue to point out that fact.
Twist things however you want, the previous comments explain things more than adequately.
You can play word games and ignore the plain answers all you want, I trust anyone who cares can see past your nonsense.
“Word games” seems to be an odd description for merely requiring people to provide a shred of proof for the wild assertions they put forth.
And, of course, I’m still waiting for an answer (“plain” or otherwise) for why Rockwell’s personal views justify the NC LP’s abandonment of basic libertarian principles.
It’s a shame that “common sense” is all too often common nonsense and ignorant prejudice. Your graphic oversimplifies the reality of gender identity. But thanks for at least being able to grasp that surgically altered is an issue, which is more than the ignoramus framers of HB2 do.
The comments to this article show some of the problems with getting Libertarian ideas accepted by the general public. The discussion is often great but most people will never read it. My campaign has adopted an “insensitive” meme with a few comments to clarify/address many of the actual Libertarian points raised here:
https://www.facebook.com/JoeyBerry2016/photos/pb.262993147368855.-2207520000.1462063948./265991313735705/?type=3&theater
*The idea is to cut through P.C.B.S. (Politically Correct B.S.) and show the vast majority of people that they are Libertarian at heart; while reminding some Libertarians that sometimes the rights that should be promoted/defended belong to the majority…
Joey Berry for President in 2016
More tl; dr from jim. He must be very bored and not have much of a life. In addition to being a hate filled person. Oh well.
Roy Weller: “Jim’s side has already lost the “argument.” They just haven’t realized it yet. 50 years from now they will look about the same as the people holding up “segregation forever” signs in the 1960s look now in the old pictures.”
To this, I have to respond: WHICH argument? The “the correct libertarian position on HB 2 is…” argument”? Or “the correct position on HB 2 is…”.
As you can see, these are two distinctly different things. Chances are that most of the recent fools intruding on this thread aren’t really libertarians at all. Do they claim to be such? I haven’t seen that. So why should they think they know “the correct libertarian position” on ANYTHING?
There are (at least) two kinds of rude intruders to the Libertarian party and libertarianism in general. There are, of course, the “Republicans/conservatives masquerading as libertarians”, of which Richard Burke of Oregon is the most obvious example I know. And then there are the “Democrats/liberals masquerading as libertarians”.
Many of them have been attracted to the LPNC’s screwup, which backed the repeal of NC bill HB 2, and yet ‘neglecting’ to complain about Charlotte Resolution 7056. I strongly suspect, and Brad Hessel almost admitted, they decided to not object to the latter in their press release because they wanted greater publicity-value: They are smart enough to realize that “when dog bites man, that’s not news, but when man bites dog, that’s news.”
The LPNC knew that the biased MSM (mainsteam media) would have considered it far more ‘newsworthy’ for a State libertarian chapter to screw up the correct statement of libertarian policy, than to correctly cite libertarian policy. THAT is why they failed to mention Charlotte Resolution 7056. And that’s a terrible way to get publicity for the Libertarian party.
Most of these intruders to IPR are just PC fools who wouldn’t know a libertarian position if it bit them on the nose. They cannot formulate a libertarian argument, even a flawed one. Most of the time, they don’t even try.
Jim’s side has already lost the “argument.” They just haven’t realized it yet. 50 years from now they will look about the same as the people holding up “segregation forever” signs in the 1960s look now in the old pictures.
You’re the one saying foolish things here, there’s no “argument” and tl; dr means your keyboard spewage is too long to read much less waste time answering. It means it doesn’t even rise to the level of deserving an answer. And once again, everything I said above remains true and more than adequately explains the situation. I don’t need to provide additional evidence or defend anything, least of all from you.
James Welby foolishly said: “Looks like jim has a lot of time on his hands. tl; dr,”
To James Welby, tl, dr apparently means, ‘I’ve lost the argument! I’m scared! I’m gonna run away now!”
” but stand by my earlier comments above.”
Problem is, “standing by” them is all you’re doing! You are not DEFENDING your arguments against challenges by others. You are not providing additional evidence. You might as well be abandoning them.
Looks like jim has a lot of time on his hands. tl; dr, but stand by my earlier comments above.
The following is an example of a NC Supreme Court decision that a state’s laws overrule local laws:
http://capitaltonightnc.twcnews.com/category/uncategorized/page/3/
“NC Supreme Court Strikes Down Cellphone Law
JUN 12TH – 3:23 PM [2014]
Posted by Ben McNeely in […] 0 Comments
RALEIGH–Chapel Hill’s law banning cellphone use while driving has been struck down by the North Carolina Supreme Court.”
“The justices’ decision Thursday overturned an earlier Court of Appeals ruling. The court unanimously agreed that state law pre-empted the town’s ability to regulate highways and roads and prohibited the town’s enforcement of the cellphone ban.”
The court also struck down a separate town ordinance regulating towing.
“George King runs a towing business in Chapel Hill and sued the town challenging both laws. King said he could not obey the town’s towing laws, which requires that a tower notify police within 15 minutes of the tow without breaking its cellphone ordinance banning the use of cellphones while driving.”
Copyright 2014 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
[end of quote]
This news item, of course, doesn’t say that such control is “libertarian”. It shows, however, that the concept of NC state’s laws pre-empting local laws is nothing new. Presumably, no “bigotry” was alleged in the cell phone case. PCs’ outrage is selective.
The clueless non-libertarian dweebs contaminating this thread simply don’t like HB2 because it undoes the local Ordinance, 7056, which itself pandered to the LGBT crowd. It ‘solved’ a problem which didn’t exist, as transgenders have presumably used facilities (both government-owned and private-owned) in Charlotte with little or no complaint, and in fact caused a problem because it raised the level of decision of bathroom policy from building owners (of which there might be thousands in Charlotte), to a very few government employees. Prior to 7056, no pervert or pedophile had any government-sanctioned ‘right’ to enter an unwelcome bathroom. After 7056, had it not been cut short by HB 2, they would have had such a ‘right’. The correct libertarian position, even if simplistically assumed to always be making decisions at the lowest possible level, was clearly violated by 7056, and restored by HB 2.
I think all of 7056 should be withdrawn, as well as amending HB 2 (up to and including eliminating all of it) to remove any negative aspects.
James welby: “Constitutionist fetishism doesn’t impress me,…”
I’ve never heard the term, “Constitutionalist fetishism” before. Did you just make it up? I do see that “Constitutional fetishism” Googles, however. Keep in mind that libertarians don’t necessarily have any particular loyalty towards defending the U.S. Constitution: It’s just that when the current reality doesn’t even rise to having rights protected as well as they should be by the U.S. Constitution, that discrepancy is certainly worth noting.
” but I guess it’s the last refuge of bathroom bigot…”
“Bathroom bigot” googles, but it’s very minor, and much of its usage is seen as a derision of those who claim it. One great cartoon is at: totus-blog.blogspot[dotkom]/2016/04/bathroom-bigot-as-seen-by-liberals[dahthotmail]l
” scoundrels. To whatever degree “states rights” has any valid impetus behind it, it’s from decentralism, not from an obsession with powdered whigs.
The very concept of ‘states rights’ derives from the oft-forgotten fact that the United States was formed with a federalist system of government, with states having large and undefined powers, and the federal government having small and well-defined powers. The bastardization of that system, primarily beginning in the 20th century, is what led to most of the problems with society during that period.
“As for langa, you’ve been provided more than enough examples that Rockwellites support states rights over civil rights….”
I disagree with your usage of the word, “over”. States rights do not necessarily (and, I would argue, rarely) conflict with what I believe the proper interepretation of ‘civil rights’ is.
“…, because they believed that federales overriding states was worse than states violating individuals, businesses, or localities….
Both are bad, in my opinion. One difference is that the Federalist system clearly limited the authority of the Feds, and those limitations were being egregiously violated. The fact that you LIKE some of the consequences of that violation says more about you than anyone else.
“… That even extended to slavery. It isn’t necessary to provide a direct link saying that they specifically support the right of states to force businesses to segregate…”
Then you’re blaming them not because of their specific opinions, but simply as a consequence of the long-term outcome of the experiment begun in 1789 to form a “federal government”. In other words, you are at war with reality.
“, because that’s just the net effect of not allowing feds to intervene when they are the only ones in a practical position to stop states from doing so. ”
Prove that the feds should have that authority to intervene, and I’ll pay attention to you. The U.S. Constitution is rather short. Should be easy for you to find, if it’s there.
“Yet they argue that allowing feds to intervene is a worse transgression than anything states can do to individuals or businesses in those states. Not so here.”
I suspect that there were many different kinds of intervention used, some more justified than others. If they had limited their efforts to more-justified kinds, we’d be living in a different (and better) country today.
You can play word games and ignore the plain answers all you want, I trust anyone who cares can see past your nonsense.
…you’ve been provided more than enough examples that Rockwellites support states rights over civil rights…
That’s not what I asked for. I asked for evidence that they support states rights over private property rights. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the “Rockwellites” support decentralization all the way down to the individual level. So, yes, they support the states over the feds (e.g. the feds trying to force desegregation in public schools), but they do not support the states over individuals property owners (e.g. state-mandated segregation in private businesses). Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it with the rest of us.
It isn’t necessary to provide a direct link saying that they specifically support the right of states to force businesses to segregate…
It’s only necessary if you want to prove that the “Rockwellites” support states’ rights over private property rights, as you have continued to assert, but refuse to provide any evidence for.
Of course, even if you did prove that, I don’t see how it would help you, given that you still haven’t explained why Rockwell’s personal views in any way justify the NC LP’s failure to stand up for private property rights.
Trolls such as jim will of course keep up their endless spewage of keyboard sewage, but luckily the world will move on no matter how much they hate it and their position will look more and more absurd with the inevitable passage of time.
Constitutionist fetishism doesn’t impress me, but I guess it’s the last refuge of bathroom bigot scoundrels. To whatever degree “states rights” has any valid impetus behind it, it’s from decentralism, not from an obsession with powdered whigs.
As for langa, you’ve been provided more than enough examples that Rockwellites support states rights over civil rights, because they believed that federales overriding states was worse than states violating individuals, businesses, or localities. That even extended to slavery. It isn’t necessary to provide a direct link saying that they specifically support the right of states to force businesses to segregate, because that’s just the net effect of not allowing feds to intervene when they are the only ones in a practical position to stop states from doing so. Yet they argue that allowing feds to intervene is a worse transgression than anything states can do to individuals or businesses in those states. Not so here.
I’m still waiting for any of the faux-libertarian trolls that have infected this thread to show me a single link to any of the “Rockwellites” using the principle of decentralization to justify government restrictions on private property. Come on, guys. You keep telling me the evidence of this is overwhelming. How about just a single example? Pretty please?
More importantly, I’m still waiting for any of you to tell me what the hell the views of the “Rockwellites” have to do with whether the NC LP took the correct position on HB 2. After all, you’re not saying that Rockwell is the arbiter of what counts as libertarian, are you? Assuming that you’re not, then I’ll ask again: Why are you so fixated on his views? Could it be that you are simply trying to deflect attention away from the NC LP’s egregious failure to support private property rights?
Of course, you guys can keep ignoring me, and repeating the same talking points that have been refuted several times already. But if you do, then I’m just going to keep asking the same questions that you all have repeatedly failed to answer. So, you have three choices: you can either admit that the NC LP was wrong, you can answer those questions that you keep dodging, or we can keep doing this silly song and dance over and over, for as long as you want. It’s up to you.
James Welby:
““Where, exactly, did the power come from to allow the Feds to force States to not discriminate? ”
“Presumably from the same place that the power for states to force cities TO discriminate.”
By that, you demonstrate your extreme ignorance of American government, politics, and history. Part of the key is that American states existed prior to the formation of the US government. The Revolutionary War took the authority that had previously been assumed was possessed by the King of England, and adopted that as the power of the citizenry. A portion of that power was allocated, in each of 13 states, to the governments, according to the Constitutions of each such state.
Whether their Constitutions, at that point, authorized the state government to force counties and cities to discriminate, I don’t claim to know. But it would certainly be plausible that such a power existed.
However, the authority of the Federal government derived from a different source. Two representatives from each of these states met, and wrote a Constitution. That represented a limited grant of authority, from each state, to the Federal government. Most authority was supposed to have been kept with the state governments themselves; a small and limited power was assigned to the Feds.
The power of the Feds generally was kept limited until the 20th century, at which point they began to forget the origins of the authority of the Federal government.
The Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act of 1914 was just one initial disaster. Alcohol Prohibition of 1919 was another, but at least they still recognized that they had to have a Constitutional amendment to have authority do accomplish that.
In 1933, the National Firearms Act purported to tax machine guns, at $200 per, despite the 2nd Amendment’s statement that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What part of “shall not be infringed” did they not understand?!?
By about 1938, they had entirely abandoned the pretense, and marijuana was illegalized by the fiction of “taxing” it, and simply refusing to sell the “tax stamps” that would have been necessary for people to grow it. Was this “legal”, or more accurately, constitutional? I don’t think so!.
Yet another wacky line was crossed in 1943, when the Supreme Court decided the case Wickard v. Filburn, purporting to regulate growing of grain for consumption on a farm, based on the fig-leaf that if they DIDN’T consume it on the farm, it would somehow affect “interstate commerce”. How insane can these people get?
“But, as we already saw above, it’s actually about desired outcomes on the part of the Rockwellites and associated racists and reactionaries, with decentralist and libertarian rhetoric being employed selectively only if and when it serves such desired outcomes.”
I don’t find the OPINIONS of these people to be in any way definitive or authoritative. If they are right, they are right regardless of whether your opinion of them and their statements is favorable or unfavorable. You’ve heard the statement, “a stopped clock is right twice a day”. I’ll take that one better: “A bigoted or racist clock can nevertheless be right ALL THE TIME”.
Your negative opinion of somebody doesn’t mean he isn’t correct. Get it?!? Stop pushing your PC nonsense.
“Where, exactly, did the power come from to allow the Feds to force States to not discriminate? ”
Presumably from the same place that the power for states to force cities TO discriminate.
But, as we already saw above, it’s actually about desired outcomes on the part of the Rockwellites and associated racists and reactionaries, with decentralist and libertarian rhetoric being employed selectively only if and when it serves such desired outcomes.
Roy Weller: The last bit of the url you cited included:
“Update: recently Ron Paul appeared on Hardball with Chris Mathews, and announced that he would vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because the Act, by making it illegal to serve people because of race, violated property rights. Paul’s argument was claimed that racism was caused “by laws” and that laws were the problem, not racism. He suggested that segregation was “ancient history” and since it had itself been “created by laws” it would not happen any more.”
“I can’t really begin to comment on the absurdity of this position. Maybe later”
The reality, however, is that our country was founded on the principles of _limited_ government. The government simply didn’t have all the powers that you, me, or others might have wanted it to have. The Federal government was intended to be supplied with very limited, defined and specific power, described in the U.S. Constitution. The States were said to be supplied with general power, but themselves limited by their own Constitutions.
Where, exactly, did the power come from to allow the Feds to force States to not discriminate? Or to allow the Feds to force individuals, companies, or corporations to not discriminate?
I suppose I hope that the Feds had the (proper) power to be able to tell the States not to force private entities to discriminate, but merely hoping that would not have made it so. Perhaps your opinion is that it doesn’t matter if the U.S. Constitution granted the Feds to do what it did, because “the ends justify the means”.
Is that what you believe?
Roy Weller, yes, there’s much, much but why throw pearls before swine? Anyone who is interested already knows the reality of the Rockwellites and their endless hypocritical bigotry, or can easily find out if they care to know. Thus, those who pretend to be genuinely interested and unaware of same are disingenuous an deliberately engaged in time wasting tactics and sophistry. The only thing left to do is to let them stew in their unrequited hate and misguided nostalgia while the rest of humanity moves on.
John Byrd: Above, you claimed “We’ve spent entirely too much time here but I’ll keep standing by everything I said above as well as the LPNC’s correct position on HB2.”
Problem is, above you screwed up when you said:
“Even the “clearly libertarian” part of HB2 involves a higher level of government stepping in to override a lower level, which Rockwellites usually claim trumps whatever good that higher level of government is trying to achieve (except, as we see, in cases like this). But I’m glad that we agree that NC state government has no business telling Charlotte what to do on its own city property, at least.”
Your and others’ claims that higher levels of government shouldn’t trump lower levels conveniently ‘forgot’ that the way things were done in Charlotte before Ordinance 7056 involved building owners (the lowest level; even lower than “local government”) deciding for themselves their own buildings’ bathroom policy.
Not surprising that you misunderstood: You, a statist, would “forget” that the lowest level of control over privately-owned buildings ISN’T “local government”, but is in fact individual control, which is generally the epitome of libertarian thought.
Charlotte’s 7056 is what intruded into the mix, raising the level of the decision to that of local government. The State’s HB 2 merely nullified that intrusion, bringing the situation back to where it had long been.
That means that you simply misunderstood the meaning of Libertarian philosophy and how to apply it. Therefore, we accept your opinion of the “correct” libertarian as being worthless and nuts. No doubt you ‘like’ the NCLP’s position because (and only because) it erred. Had the not made a mistake, you would have rejected it, probably calling it “bigoted”.
If you doubt this, answer this: Would you accept the return to the status quo, prior to the passage of Ordinance 7056, if HB 2 were repealed? The status quo ante presumably allowed transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice, the large majority of the time.
http://theaporetic.com/?p=1575
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html
https://www.facebook.com/The-Ludwig-von-Mises-Institute-and-Racism-150006785205126/
If you failed to note all the neo-confederate material at LR.Com, and all the defenses of segregationism — which, again, also applied to businesses that would have rather increased their customer base — all on the pretext of states rights, you haven’t paid attention. I don’t feel any need to prove it, as anyone who really wants to know can finds tons of this crap from Rockwell and his cohorts themselves. And yes, I did elipse a sentence that veered off from the discussion at hand. We’ve spent entirely too much time here but I’ll keep standing by everything I said above as well as the LPNC’s correct position on HB2. Hopefully the other state LPs and nation will follow suit.
Nice try, but no cigar.
First, I find it telling that, in your attempt to smear Rockwell as a bigot, you quote him calling MLK “a fraud and a tool” — but you leave out the very next sentence, where he says, “But when [MLK] turned his attention to the evils of the U.S. war on Vietnam, I began to like him.”
Second, and more importantly, there is a big difference between sympathizing with a cause, and agreeing with every aspect of it. For example, Spooner obviously sympathized with the Confederacy’s desire to secede, but he just as obviously opposed the existence of slavery. Was Spooner, in your view, also a bigot? Is there no room in your narrow worldview for intellectual nuance?
Finally, and most important of all, I will continue to repeat (until I’m blue in the face, if necessary) that no amount of libertarian deviation on the part of Rockwell can excuse the failure of the NC LP to stand up for private property rights. Even if Rockwell were the devil incarnate, it would be irrelevant to my point.
John Byrd,
Could you clarify which portion of your most recent comment is quoted from others, and which is in your own words?
From https://mises.org/library/libertarianism-and-old-right
Lew Rockwell is quoted
“The civil-rights movement of the 1960s complicates the picture. My ideological sympathies were and are with those who resisted the federal government’s attacks on the freedom of association (not to mention the federalist structure of the Constitution) in the name of racial integration. I never liked Martin Luther King, Jr. I thought he was a fraud and a tool. […]
These days, the neocons say the 1964 Civil Rights Act was an attempt to remove barriers to opportunity, and only later was distorted with quotas. That’s absurd. Everyone, both proponents and opponents, knew exactly what that law was: a statist, centralizing measure that fundamentally attacked the rights of property and empowered the state as mind reader: to judge not only our actions, but our motives, and to criminalize them.
Civil-Rights Juggernaut
The good folks who resisted the civil-rights juggernaut were not necessarily ideologically driven. Mostly they resented horrible intrusions into their communities, the media smears, and the attacks on their fundamental freedoms that civil rights represented. The brighter lights among the resistance movement correctly forecast quotas, though few could have imagined monstrosities like the Americans With Disabilities Act. Of course, they were and continue to be viciously caricatured by the partisans of central power.”
Keep in mind that this “resistance” which was defending segregationist laws was defending state laws that forced businesses to segregate whether they wanted to or not.
Yes, you are wrong. They argue that even though segregation – which included forcing businesses to segregate even when they didn’t want to – was wrong, it was a greater wrong for the federal government to intervene. Likewise, with slavery, even if they acknowledge it was a rights violation, they believe states rights was more important. But they don’t apply that same logic here, leading to the inescapable conclusion that their real highest goal is preserving/resurrecting the social status quo ante, including white supremacy, patriarchy, theocracy and rigid gender roles, with libertarian arguments serving only as a fig leaf.
This is simply false, and I will again challenge you to provide a link where Rockwell (or anyone else at Mises) uses the notion of decentralization to justify government restrictions on private property rights, which is what the NC LP is doing. Just one link. Should be easy enough, right?
Of course, as I continue to point out, and you faux-libertarians continue to ignore, this whole discussion is not about Rockwell, or whatever views he may have, or whether those views are right or wrong, or even whether those views are libertarian or not.
Rather, this discussion (which you are trying very hard to sidetrack) is about the correct libertarian reaction to HB 2. That reaction would be to praise HB 2 for protecting the property rights of private business owners, while simultaneously acknowledging the flaws in HB 2, as it relates to “public” property, with bonus points for pointing out that the very existence of “public” property makes these sorts of controversies inevitable.
That’s the correct libertarian position on HB 2, and by not taking that position, the NC LP quite simply dropped the ball on this issue. That’s the bottom line, and no amount of deflecting and hand waving on your part changes that.
“Wrong. They argue that there is a crucial distinction between private property and “public” property”
Yes, you are wrong. They argue that even though segregation – which included forcing businesses to segregate even when they didn’t want to – was wrong, it was a greater wrong for the federal government to intervene. Likewise, with slavery, even if they acknowledge it was a rights violation, they believe states rights was more important. But they don’t apply that same logic here, leading to the inescapable conclusion that their real highest goal is preserving/resurrecting the social status quo ante, including white supremacy, patriarchy, theocracy and rigid gender roles, with libertarian arguments serving only as a fig leaf.
They just argue that states rights was more important than ending segregation.
Wrong. They argue that there is a crucial distinction between private proerty and “public” property — one which you and your fellow faux-libertaians are determined to ignore.
Hence, we can see that the real issue for them isn’t local control but rather their reactionary social agenda.
Mr. Pot, let me introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
And again, how does anything Rockwell might have said in any way excuse the NC LP’s blatant disregard for the rights of private property owners?
Oh wait, I forgot … You don’t give a shit about property rights, do you?
“First, I would love for John Byrd (who made this comment) or anyone else to point to Rockwell (or anyone from the Mises crowd) arguing that state governments have the right to force private businesses to practice segregation.”
They just argue that states rights was more important than ending segregation. On the other hand as we can see here they are not that interested in local rights if the bone of contention is the more local government being more socially liberal. Hence, we can see that the real issue for them isn’t local control but rather their reactionary social agenda.
The good thing about issues like this is that they allow us to see very clearly whether someone is an actual libertarian who consistently takes the pro-freedom position, or merely a “coincidental libertarian” who only supports freedom when it leads to their preferred outcome, and is quick to embrace the use of aggression when it seems convenient.
The vast majority (though possibly not all) of the NC LP’s defenders seem to be of the latter persuasion, as this thread has clearly demonstrated. Like most left-authoritarians, they are not interested in the NAP, self-ownership or any other libertarian principles, and they did not come here to make a libertarian case for their positions. Rather, they came here to repeat talking points, and if anyone dares to dispute those talking points, rather than engage in logical argument, they instead resort to assertions of bigotry and other ad hominem smears. The goal is not to persuade their opponents, but to silence them.
I’m not going to go back and respond to all of their bumper sticker rhetoric, especially since most of it is just repeating the same points that Jim and I have already answered, but I do want to mention one clear case of the lies and deflections that characterize this “argumentative” style:
Note that, as with the part of HB2 pertaining to local government facilities, this is an argument between two levels of government, about government facilities. In the case of desegregation (or ending slavery), Rockwellites care more decentralization/states rights.
And, yes, that even applies to cases where the feds forced state governments to allow private businesses to voluntarily desegregate.
Two points here:
First, I would love for John Byrd (who made this comment) or anyone else to point to Rockwell (or anyone from the Mises crowd) arguing that state governments have the right to force private businesses to practice segregation.
Second, even if this ridiculous charge were true, it would be irrelevant to the discussion in this thread, as I had already pointed out, well before Byrd’s comment:
…let’s assume for a second that your assertions are correct. What the hell does that have to do with whether the NC LP is justified in supporting a law that massively violates property rights? It seems like your argument is, “Well, some people who claim to be libertarians took some non-libertarian positions, so I guess that means other libertarians are justified in taking non-libertarian positions, too.” In other words, two wrongs make a right — is that your claim?
You’ll note Byrd completely ignores this point, and goes right along with the typical left-authoritarian tactic of using ad hominem arguments and “two wrongs make a right” logic.
As I said before, these people clearly have little (if any) interest in libertarianism, except when they find it to be a convenient shortcut to reach their “culture war” goals.
Brad Hessel needs an intervention to explain to him that Jim Bell is not worth nearly that much of his time.
Bill Hicks:
“Majority of the comments fail to realize that the LPNC is a state level party. ”
I think your comment is irrelevant to the issue involved.
“They did a great job at addressing a state level bill”
No, they did a terrible job. They misled the public about HB 2, and they failed to educate the public about the problem with Charlotte Ordinance 7056. Individuals have the luxury of being incomplete, even totally wrong about their political opinions. A State Libertarian party organization has a responsibility to the state LP membership to not put out sloppy resolutions.
” and pointed out that McCrory was overstepping by intruding all over Charlotte’s bill.”
State governments frequently “intrude all over” local law. Usually, whenever there’s a state law, it applies in local jurisdictions whether the local jurisdiction likes it or not. When’s the last time you complained about that? Are you complaining simply because your PC ox is being gored?
“Had McCrory banned guns while Charlotte chose to increase freedoms of said guns then all these comments would be praising the LPNC for standing against the states intrusion on Charlotte. You can’t pick and choose what freedoms to defend, they all have to be defended.”
Except that the State has to obey an even higher authority, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Had such an interference with the 2nd occurred, the state could and should have been slapped down.
And no, I disagree that the City of Charlotte had a “freedom” to regulate privately-owned bathrooms. They didn’t, before. They did so purely for pandering to the PC’s. Prior to Ordinance 7056, it would have been correctly said that individual building owners had the freedom to decide their own bathroom policies. HB 2, despite its flaws, guaranteed that right.
“Now it would be up to the local LP for Mecklenburg County to release a statement denouncing the forced bathroom bill for private business that Charlotte passed, citing private business/property. That’s a local party addressing a local bill.”
It would certainly be correct for them to do that. But that wouldn’t mean that nobody else could complain, as well.
Jim Bell responds inline to Brad Hessel
“Thanks again for taking the time to comment. I am pretty much in agreement with you except on two points. Well, one -and-a-half points.
I am ambivalent about leaving the Charlotte ordinance out of the resolution. Manifestly you are right that leaving it out has the potential to be confusing. But the simpler message also has the greater potential to be noticed and communicated and raise awareness that we libertarians exist…and the resolution did indeed get some notable play here in the media. ”
Are you saying that the resolution wouldn’t have gotten “some notable play here in the media” if it had also denounced Ordinance 7056? Looks to me like anything about HB 2 has received extensive coverage so far.
“We are running seven candidates in Wake County (site of the LPNC Convention this year) compared to zero in 2014 and anything the state party can do to help attract attention to them is a plus for us. If the judicious use of baby aspirin instead of the full strength variety can open some doors for us which otherwise might remain closed, well as a party working hard to compete, we have to consider it. It doesn’t signify if we have the strongest possible medicine but no way to deliver it…and the direct approach is not invariably the most effective.”
It also appears that despite receiving a lot of opposition from outside the state, HB 2 has also received a lot of support. And, most of that support seems to be based on its prohibition on letting the Charlotte government impose bathroom policy on businesses. The most obvious explanation for LPNC’s stated position is that it was deliberately limited so as to pander to the PC crowd. Sure your organization got a lot of publicity, but you did so by neglecting to adequately explain it. This troubles me. In my 40 years knowing I’m a libertarian, I usually find that fears of how libertarian policy will be taken by the non-libertarian public turn out to be greatly overstated.
“Be that as it may, I am not 100% sure that leaving ordinance 7056 out of the resolution was the best way to go in they particular instance. ”
I think it would have been better if LPNC had said nothing about HB 2 until you had prepared a better response. LPNC had time. It still does. Swallow your pride and correct your mistake.
“I am sure, however, that the precedent of invoking the state to nanny a wayward locality—or the Feds to issue mandates to a state—constitutes a terribly slippery slope fraught with the potential of backfiring badly should a statist party control the higher government. Not to mention it flies in the face of our preaching about the central government having too much power and wanting to move that power downhill as close to the individual as possible.”
Except that the de-facto state of the world, prior to Charlotte’s Ordinance 7056, was (I assume?) that was that the control already occurred at the lowest level of control: The individual businesses owners themselves. Ordinance 7056 was completely unnecessary, the City of Charlotte government already knew that, and itself it pandered to the PC’s. THAT represented “the slippery slope”, not a state law to check the local-government’s misconduct.
“But the thing is, when there are hundreds of counties and thousands of cities calling the shots instead of dozens of states and one central government, we are going to see a lot of variation, including some who do stupid things, some who do unlibertarian things, some who do both.”
But HB 2 had specifically stated that building owners should and would be making the decisions, NOT “hundreds of counties and thousands of cities”. HB 2 shouldn’t and wouldn’t have been at all necessary, except for the City of Charlotte’s foolish involving itself in the issue.
” In such a case, the best way forward is to let people learn from their mistakes.”
And the mistake of the LPNC was to put out a misleading and incomplete resolution that made it appear that the only thing wrong was HB 2, and that none of it was necessary. The truth is that there was no problem prior to Charlotte’s Ordinance 7056: That government act initiated the problem, not HB 2. HB 2 was intended to correct that, but itself it went too far in other areas.
” If the folks in Charlotte imagine that electing a bunch of social engineers to their city council will improve life there—imposing all sorts of “PC” regs on business or whatever—let them go for it.”
Except that people have constitutional rights, even if those rights have not been well-defended by governments and courts up to now. And, of course, as libertarians we believe people have other rights, even if those aren’t being respected yet. If anything, HB 2 has been that rare example where one portion of government slapped down hard on another portion which violated our rights. Even if the non-libertarian portion of the public cluelessly didn’t understand that. The LPNC could have educated them, rather than merely placate the statist left.
” If they are right, mazel tov! If more likely they end up driving their best employers and jobs away to cities with citizens who are not delusional, then a good lesson will have been learned.”
A lot of people can, and have, gotten hurt by over-reaching government, mostly when nobody was around to protect them. Rather than trying to slap down the North Carolina legislature, correct them, explain the actual problems with HB 2 and 7056, and tell the public.
Majority of the comments fail to realize that the LPNC is a state level party. They did a great job at addressing a state level bill and pointed out that McCrory was overstepping by intruding all over Charlotte’s bill. Had McCrory banned guns while Charlotte chose to increase freedoms of said guns then all these comments would be praising the LPNC for standing against the states intrusion on Charlotte. You can’t pick and choose what freedoms to defend, they all have to be defended.
Now it would be up to the local LP for Mecklenburg County to release a statement denouncing the forced bathroom bill for private business that Charlotte passed, citing private business/property. That’s a local party addressing a local bill.
However, Hessel does continue to make good points, if you can read that massive wall of text without getting dizzy and nauseous.
Taking half a point away from Brad Hessel for wasting so much time on Jim Bell. The Score is now Hessel 0.5, Bell 0.0.
This is Brad Hessel’s response:
“jim —
Brad Hessel just commented on 2016 Convention Calls for HB 2 Repeal:
Mr. Bell, Thanks again for taking the time to comment. I am pretty much in agreement with you except on two points. Well, one -and-a-half points. I am ambivalent about leaving the Charlotte ordinance out of the resolution. Manifestly you are right that leaving it out has the potential to be confusing. But the simpler message also has the greater potential to be noticed and communicated and raise awareness that we libertarians exist…and the resolution did indeed get some notable play here in the media. We are running seven candidates in Wake County (site of the LPNC Convention this year) compared to zero in 2014 and anything the state party can do to help attract attention to them is a plus for us. If the judicious use of baby aspirin instead of the full strength variety can open some doors for us which otherwise might remain closed, well as a party working hard to compete, we have to consider it. It doesn’t signify if we have the strongest possible medicine but no way to deliver it…and the direct approach is not invariably the most effective. Be that as it may, I am not 100% sure that leaving ordinance 7056 out of the resolution was the best way to go in they particular instance. I am sure, however, that the precedent of invoking the state to nanny a wayward locality—or the Feds to issue mandates to a state—constitutes a terribly slippery slope fraught with the potential of backfiring badly should a statist party control the higher government. Not to mention it flies in the face of our preaching about the central government having too much power and wanting to move that power downhill as close to the individual as possible. But the thing is, when there are hundreds of counties and thousands of cities calling the shots instead of dozens of states and one central government, we are going to see a lot of variation, including some who do stupid things, some who do unlibertarian things, some who do both. In such a case, the best way forward is to let people learn from their mistakes. If the folks in Charlotte imagine that electing a bunch of social engineers to their city council will improve life there—imposing all sorts of “PC” regs on business or whatever—let them go for it. If they are right, mazel tov! If more likely they end up driving their best employers and jobs away to cities with citizens who are not delusional, then a good lesson will have been learned.
Respond here: http://www.lpnc.org/2016_convention_passes_two_resolutions?recruiter_id=11319014
[End of Brad Hessel’s response]
Score for Brad Hessel.
Brad Hessel 1, jim 0.
My response to Brad Hessel, inline:
“Brad Hessel commented Speaking as one of the delegates present when this resolution was adopted, I can assure you that our opposition to HB 2 does not imply support for Ordinance 7056. ”
As a Libertarian, and now that you have said that, I understand your position. The problem is that most people, and even many libertarians, would not understand without your further explanation. In a quotation widely attributed to Albert Einstein, “EVERYTHING SHOULD BE MADE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT SIMPLER”. Loudly objecting to HB 2, and not mentioning anything about Ordinance 7056, at least as a public pronouncement, would lead almost anyone to the conclusion that your objection is only with HB 2, and not Ordinance 7056. No doubt thousands of people have already been confused by thinking that the LPNC position is the ‘correct’ and complete one for libertarians to follow.
“Government at any level has no legitimate interest in regulating sexual identity.”
Tell that to the people who create the forms for birth certificates.
” However [a] the proper remedy for a bad city ordinance is for that city to reconsider…”
Well, I agree that the city has to reconsider, and abandon, their prior position.
“…, not for the state or the Feds to interfere with local government…”
But I very much disagree that to the extent you portray it. The libertarian position, at least in respect to bathroom policies in buildings owned by individuals, businesses, and corportions, should be that they are at the mercy of clueless local government people. If there is one thing that HB 2 gets right, it is that local government should not be regulating business in this way. If that local government should choose to abandon Ordinance 7056, fine, but I see nothing wrong with state government correcting their obvious error in this way, until they do.
“…and [b] HB 2 includes other provisions that do not bear on Ordinance 7056, most of which are odious.”
Then the LPNC position should be that HB 2 should be amended to remove such “odious” portions, and keep the rest, including portions made necessary by the Charlotte government.
“FYI, there was discussion among us delegates about including an explicit condemnation of Ordinance 7056 in the Resolution but after due consideration the majority present decided that sticking with the simpler approach of just focusing on HB 2 would be more effective at advancing the ball, politically speaking.”
Sorry, but by doing so you’ve made a mistake. Perhaps LPNC simply fell into the hands of some PC-types. Is what you did, “simpler”? Perhaps, but remember Einstein’s statement, above:
“EVERYTHING SHOULD BE MADE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT SIMPLER”
You have made your position MUCH simpler than it should have been, preventing it from remaining faithful to true libertarian policy. It has become misleading both to libertarians and non-libertarians alike. Once of the advantages of modern Internet use is that a website can contain as much material as you think is proper to include: People will read until they get tired of doing so; to each his own. If you think the LPNC’s position was somehow space-limited, you should have referred to a “complete” exposition of your position at some URL.
Jim Bell, libertarian in Vancouver WA
” Government at any level has no legitimate interest in regulating sexual identity. However [a] the proper remedy for a bad city ordinance is for that city to reconsider, not for the state or the Feds to interfere with local government and [b] HB 2 includes other provisions that do not bear on Ordinance 7056, most of which are odious.”
Well said. I agree completely.
I have received this response from Brad Hessell, the IT manager of LP NC. (My email to him is also included below)
Jim b
11:12 AM (1 hour ago)
to info
To the Libertarian Party of North Carolina:
Here are two responses (the second one mine) to your announced position in regard to HB 2. You should be aware that there is a serious problem with a libertarian taking a position that is in favor of government, including at the lower levels (local) telling business owners what their bathroom policies must be. To be sure, HB 2 isn’t perfect, in regards to conformance with libertarian principles, but it is far better than that taken by the local government of Charlotte, NC.
Instead of taking the position you did, you should acknowledge that HB 2’s position in regards to business bathroom policy is correct, and that the remainder, the dispute between state and local government, is arguably incorrect from a libertarian standpoint.
Jim Bell
Kevin Harper commented As a long time Libertarian I think you screwed up on this one. The Charlotte law took away the rights of an individual (read private business owner) from choice. It was government overreach. HB2 allows the individual to make that choice and only puts restrictions in government buildings. It also restricts local governments from having over reach of personal freedoms.
In the past I have voted, given money too and worked on ballot access for the libertarian party, with this poor decision I think my vote, money and time are best spent elsewhere.
jim bell commented NC Libertarians, you screwed up with your call to repeal HB 2.
See https://mises.org/blog/we-need-separation-bathroom-and-state
You are too busy being PC to be libertarian.
And I’m a lifelong libertarian, and have known it for over 40 years.
Brad Hessel
12:05 PM (30 minutes ago)
to me, info
Thanks for your note (and also for the link to the Mises Institute essay, as well as for pointing out that we have not responded to the comments on our website!).
Please be assured that opposition to HB 2 does not equate with support for Ordinance 7056. We oppose that as well. Government at any level has no legitimate interest in regulating sexual identity. However [a] the proper remedy for a bad city ordinance is for that city to reconsider, not for the state or the Feds to interfere with local government and [b] HB 2 includes other provisions that do not bear on Ordinance 7056, most of which are odious.
FYI there was discussion at the Convention at including an explicit condemnation of Ordinance 7056 in the Resolution but the majority present decided that sticking with the simpler approach of just focusing on HB 2 would be more effective at advancing the ball.
Brad Hessel
I/T MANAGER
Maybe all I can do is laugh at the people like Bud Fein and James Welby. After all, they keep referring to “bigotry”. But “bigotry” amounts, simply, to opinions, beliefs, thoughts. America 225 years ago decided to include the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting intrusions on free speech. Free thought, if anything, should be considered even more fundamental than free speech.
People like Bud Fein and James Welby are saying, in effect, ‘People who have opinions we don’t like don’t have any rights at all! If we get enough of a majority in government, we can squash them like bugs!’
An owner of a business that possesses a bathroom was going to be told, by the local Charlotte government, ‘We don’t care if you think you have excellent reasons to have your own bathroom policy. We know better than you!’. A portion of HB 2 corrected that error, which no doubt would affected many thousands of businesses. If the policies that these businesses would have wished to adopt disagreed with the PC-thought-of-the week, they would have been labelled “bigots”.
I choose, instead, to come down on the side of individual rights, of property rights. THAT is the proper position for libertarians everywhere, include LPNC. It’s too bad LPNC isn’t willing to try to defend their foolish and un-libertarian position.
When history looks back on today’s bathroom bigots they will look very, very foolish, much like the pro-segregation protesters of yesteryear.
iheart.com gets it backwards. It is not trans women who are likely to become predators. It is far more likely that they will have predators attack them if they are forced to use the mens room, since trans women are as far as anyone can tell without looking at their birth certificate, women. And trans men being forced to use the ladies room would lead to understandable, albeit unjustified, feelings of being unsafe by some women, since trans men are as far as anyone can tell without looking at their birth certificate, men.
Here’s another “Libertarian Rant” (self-described by author) on HB2:
http://theodysseyonline.com/uncw/libertarian-rant-nc-hb2/408480
Partial quote:
“The answer to my second question is a little trickier. Many people have been quick to say that the Republicans in the General Assembly and Governor Pat McCrory just are bigots and are trying to marginalize the LGBT community, but the honest answer is that it was a response to an ordinance that passed in Charlotte that would allow people to use the bathroom of their gender identity. This unnecessary ordinance is the origination point of the entire issue at hand. Transgendered people were already using the bathrooms of their choice and had been for years, but the Charlotte government decided to step in and make a law saying, “Hey, we know you’ve been doing this for years, but we’re just going to go ahead and make it legal for you to do it.” In this nod to the LGBT community, they brought this normally non-issue to the forefront of state politics, in turn directly causing HB2 to be written and passed. Here lies the true issue that this piece of legislation represents: government, no matter the size, creates problems that are not there.” [end of portion quoted]
This is an interesting North Carolina-sourced take on HB 2:
http://wwnc.iheart.com/onair/pete-kaliner-46655/getting-clarity-on-north-carolinas-hb2-14569877/
I should add I hope that other state LPs and the national party will also take a stand against the bathroom bigotry of the NC state government and some other states that is being whipped up by a hate driven frenzy by reactionary right wing bigots.
Bud Fein: ““The state has no authority to determine gender,” the unanimous resolution states. HB 2 also “unduly intrudes state authority into local decision-making and unreasonably limits the ability of the citizens … to govern themselves.””
“In addition, the bill reduces individual rights because it “bans citizens from using state courts to remedy discrimination”
Bud Fein: I fully agree. Good job LPNC, keep up the good work.
Sorry, Bud, but I have to laugh at your comment. Have you forgotten that the concept of “state courts” has, embedded within it, the coercion of governments over individuals? Libertarians don’t, as a general rule, automatically accept the idea that “government” ought to have the authority it has over people. Your defense of this, using courts as an example, is grotesque, at least from a Libertarian standpoint.
Further, when you say “remedy discrimination”, which kind of “discrimination” do you mean? I, as an individual, can refuse to patronize any business, for any reason, no reason, or what you and others might consider highly improper reasons. (Highly non-PC reasons.) Nevertheless, that comports with Libertarian philosophy. I see no reason that businesses should not be able to exercise the same level of discretion (“discrimination”) when deciding which customers to deal with. Yet, by merely using the phrase, ““bans citizens from using state courts to remedy discrimination”, this doesn’t distinguish between discrimination by governments, or discrimination by individuals, businesses, or corporations. The former is arguably improper under libertarian thought; the latter shouldn’t be.
So, in the future, rather that giving us your “drive-by opinion”, actually defend what you are claiming. Chances are you are simply being PC, and you notice that the NCLP has (incorrectly, I might add) happened to take the position-of-the-month that you just happen to like.
“The state has no authority to determine gender,” the unanimous resolution states. HB 2 also “unduly intrudes state authority into local decision-making and unreasonably limits the ability of the citizens … to govern themselves.”
In addition, the bill reduces individual rights because it “bans citizens from using state courts to remedy discrimination”
I fully agree.
Good job LPNC, keep up the good work.
My email to the LPNC, at info[at]lpnc.org
To the Libertarian Party of North Carolina:
Here are two responses (the second one mine) to your announced position in regard to HB 2. You should be aware that there is a serious problem with a libertarian taking a position that is in favor of government, including at the lower levels (local) telling business owners what their bathroom policies must be. To be sure, HB 2 isn’t perfect, in regards to conformance with libertarian principles, but it is far better than that taken by the local government of Charlotte, NC.
Instead of taking the position you did, you should acknowledge that HB 2’s position in regards to business bathroom policy is correct, and that the remainder, the dispute between state and local government, is arguably incorrect from a libertarian standpoint.
Jim Bell
Kevin Harper commented As a long time Libertarian I think you screwed up on this one. The Charlotte law took away the rights of an individual (read private business owner) from choice. It was government overreach. HB2 allows the individual to make that choice and only puts restrictions in government buildings. It also restricts local governments from having over reach of personal freedoms.
In the past I have voted, given money too and worked on ballot access for the libertarian party, with this poor decision I think my vote, money and time are best spent elsewhere.
jim bell commented NC Libertarians, you screwed up with your call to repeal HB 2.
See https://mises.org/blog/we-need-separation-bathroom-and-state
You are too busy being PC to be libertarian.
And I’m a lifelong libertarian, and have known it for over 40 years.
james welby: “Thank you North Carolina LP for taking the correct libertarian position on this important issue. The arguments of the bigots and haters are becoming increasingly irrelevant in today’s society.”
You say that, after it is obvious that there has been extensive discussion on this thread already which claims that the NC LP position ISN’T “the correct libertarian position”. Rather than merely claiming victory and going home, why don’t you actually explain WHY the NCLP position is “correct”.
Further, you are presumably aware that I have already put a comment on the NC LP website challenging their position, and so far they haven’t even bothered to respond to that, or a similar comment from another person. http://www.lpnc.org/2016_convention_passes_two_resolutions#addreaction
It sure looks to me like they’ve taken the PC position rather than “the correct libertarian position”, and they aren’t sufficiently courageous to defend their position, even after challenge by libertarians.
The only thing you have successfully claimed is that there is a problem with HB2’s example of the state government telling the local government what they can do with their own property. You haven’t mentioned a thing about the impropriety of local government’s trying to force individual property owners to adopt a specific government-mandated bathroom policy. THAT, I contend, is by far the most interesting and important issue that HB 2 resolves.
People like langa (and myself) were at least honest enough to identify that HB 2 isn’t entirely correct. What have YOU admitted, recently?
Thank you North Carolina LP for taking the correct libertarian position on this important issue. The arguments of the bigots and haters are becoming increasingly irrelevant in today’s society.
john byrd: “However, when it comes to HB2, Rockwellites believe that the right of private businesses to discriminate is more important than their otherwise overriding principle of decentralizing government,”
I think you are misrepresenting things to claim that there is an _overriding_ principle of decentralizing government.”
Instead, it’s that it’s frequently true that “decentralizing” is good. That doesn’t mean, contrary to your implication, that “decentralizing” only goes down to “local government”. Instead, individuals can be considered to be the lowest level of decentralization.
john byrd: ” and that it even trumps the right of local government to manage their own property, since after all in an ideal world they would have none, so never mind the real world where that is not currently an option that is on the table.”
langa pointed out that the part of HB2 in which state government takes over the decision about whether the bathroom policies of local government’s buildings isn’t ideal. (at least, from a libertarian standpoint). However, the NC legislature is probably not claiming to be strictly adhering to libertarian philosophy.
langa: ““Second, call me cynical, but I have a hard time believing that all this sudden concern over decentralization by the LP of NC is anything more than a convenient fig leaf for supporting the use of force to achieve their preferred cultural outcome.””
john byrd:”Funny, that’s exactly what I think the Rockwell crowd does. They are all about decentralization when it’s a state or local government defending their right to have government enforce their particular brand of religion, segregate, discriminate racially or allow slavery and the big bad feds want to intervene.
me: You are evidently deliberately disregarding my observation of the fact that ultimately, “decentralization” in this example leads to individual building owners being able to do what they want with their bathrooms. A Statist would think that “maximum decentralization” would be that which would fall to “local government”, and no further. (The lowest level involving some form of government). ; I say, instead, that “maximum decentralization” would accrue to the building owners. So, I think there is actually no inconsistency the way you’re made it sound.
john byrd: “Yet if some town like Charlotte wants to have a non-discriminatory policy on its own town property and/or stop businesses in their town from discriminating the Rockwellites are A-OK with state government intervening. If the feds stepped in, they would be all up in arms about “states rights” again.””
me: The key word you are not understanding comes from the word you’ve used: “policy”: Police. If “some town like Charlotte” wants to form a kind of “police” over privately-owned bathrooms, that is NOT “maximum decentralization” according to libertarian philosophy.
As for “defending their right to have government enforce their particular brand of religion, segregate, discriminate racially or allow slavery and the big bad feds want to intervene”, I think you’ll have to be more specific about that. It’s not at all clear that “discriminate racially” is _legally_ improper, at least if done by individuals and not coerced by government. And “allow slavery”? It’s hard to understand what specific situation you are referring to. “Enforce their particular brand of religion”? Again, I am trying to imagine what you are talking about.
“Yet Rockwellians with some regularity argue that feds violated states rights during the civil rights era by forcing schools and other government facilities to desegregate, among other things.”
Note that, as with the part of HB2 pertaining to local government facilities, this is an argument between two levels of government, about government facilities. In the case of desegregation (or ending slavery), Rockwellites care more decentralization/states rights.
And, yes, that even applies to cases where the feds forced state governments to allow private businesses to voluntarily desegregate.
However, when it comes to HB2, Rockwellites believe that the right of private businesses to discriminate is more important than their otherwise overriding principle of decentralizing government, and that it even trumps the right of local government to manage their own property, since after all in an ideal world they would have none, so never mind the real world where that is not currently an option that is on the table.
The only common thread to their arguments is that they support certain cultural outcomes: maintaining rigid gender roles and patriarchy, maintaining white supremacy and segregation, maintaining Christian hegemony. Decentralism and libertarianism only come in to play with them when they serve these ends. At any other times, as with immigration, they invent contorted arguments as to why there is supposedly a libertarian basis for their preferred cultural outcomes and racial and religious biases.
“Is there any reason why the NC LP couldn’t have applauded the clearly libertarian part of HB 2, while still noting that they had a problem with the other part?”
Even the “clearly libertarian” part of HB2 involves a higher level of government stepping in to override a lower level, which Rockwellites usually claim trumps whatever good that higher level of government is trying to achieve (except, as we see, in cases like this). But I’m glad that we agree that NC state government has no business telling Charlotte what to do on its own city property, at least.
“Second, call me cynical, but I have a hard time believing that all this sudden concern over decentralization by the LP of NC is anything more than a convenient fig leaf for supporting the use of force to achieve their preferred cultural outcome.”
Funny, that’s exactly what I think the Rockwell crowd does. They are all about decentralization when it’s a state or local government defending their right to have government enforce their particular brand of religion, segregate, discriminate racially or allow slavery and the big bad feds want to intervene. Yet if some town like Charlotte wants to have a non-discriminatory policy on its own town property and/or stop businesses in their town from discriminating the Rockwellites are A-OK with state government intervening. If the feds stepped in, they would be all up in arms about “states rights” again.
“If there are complaints, would any reasonable store owner allow “her” to use the girl’s bathroom?”
Being transgender is a lot more than playing dressup. Trans women look, act, dress, and appear to be women. Trans men look, act, dress, and appear to be men. Trans women would actually be in danger in using the mens room, and trans men would cause whatever anxiety a man might cause in some women by using the womens room.
“The funny thing is that I notice the only people still complaining about the bathroom gender thing are men. I know exactly none–as in zero, nada–women who care. Is it possible that females aren’t the ‘fraidy cats some men think we are?”
Good point Jill.
The core of the issue, using Mr. Saturns picture as a reference of the real battle, is that the North Carolina battle is a religious war between Christianity and Humanism/Satanism ( H/S ). Individual freedom will be championed by the LP for the H/S believing perverts who will impose their dictatorship on our society and culture. Such freedom will be denied for Christians who refuse to bow down before the Sodomites. This will occur because the Plantation Masters, the controllers of the LP, despise, as with the LP itself, Christianity as the true and only opposition to their own H/S religion. Hence we see the clash of 2 religious views – A) Christianity, the religious base of the nuclear family and normal/healthy children; vs. B) H/S with its anti-family base of the Marquis De Sade who considered ANY hinderance on his sexuality ( such as sex with animals, children, or anything at all ) as, since there is no right or wrong in his/their belief system, a ” taboo ” to be overcome. Christianity states that ” male and female made he them ” while H/S, as with its LP believers, says there is no God and we make ourselves; just like the pervert in Saturns picture. Hence behind their fake front of defending ” individual liberty ( for the perverts only )” the real reason the LP attacks the North Carolina bill is their spitting hatred of Christianity. That is why they will support ANYTHING in the Plantation Masters war against our Christian foundations including, as is so easy to predict, child molestation when it is remarketed as ” intergenerational love.” Then, as now, any opposition to child molestation will be termed as ” bigotry,” ” homophobia,” yada, yada, yada, by our groveling socially engineered, and pavlovian indoctrinated anti-Christian populace. And that is why the LP is a classic example of the death of men in our nation. Real men would defend women and children – something the LP full of wusses and wimps is obviously totally incapable of doing.
Last night, I was the first to comment on the LPNC website about their resolution in regard to HB 2.
http://www.lpnc.org/2016_convention_passes_two_resolutions#addreaction
There was, later, a second comment which agrees with me. Here they are, newest on top:
===============================================
Kevin Harper commented As a long time Libertarian I think you screwed up on this one. The Charlotte law took away the rights of an individual (read private business owner) from choice. It was government overreach. HB2 allows the individual to make that choice and only puts restrictions in government buildings. It also restricts local governments from having over reach of personal freedoms.
In the past I have voted, given money too and worked on ballot access for the libertarian party, with this poor decision I think my vote, money and time are best spent elsewhere.
===============================================
jim bell commented NC Libertarians, you screwed up with your call to repeal HB 2.
See https://mises.org/blog/we-need-separation-bathroom-and-state
You are too busy being PC to be libertarian.
And I’m a lifelong libertarian, and have known it for over 40 years.
================================================
[end of quote]
So, the members of LPNC have no excuse to have not noticed the objection to their position. We shall see if they will attempt to defend it.
Great, so we agree that if they city of Charlotte wants have a non-discrimination policy in its local government schools, and other city buildings, that the state of NC should not intervene. And please, no asides about how all of that property should be privatized, since that is not about to happen right now.
Sure. However, that in no way overrides the ability of private property owners to set their own bathroom policies, which is the real issue here. Furthermore, the point that there should be no such thing as “public” property is far from some irrelevant footnote. It is really the only thing that libertarianism has to say about “public” property — that it shouldn’t exist. Libertarianism is a theory that is thoroughly grounded in the idea of property rights. To pretend (as many “libertarians” have begun to do) that there is no essential difference between private property and “public” property is to completely reject the basic foundations of libertarianism, and render the whole theory incoherent. Then again, maybe that’s the whole point?
So, if you have no problem with states forcing cities to allow businesses to discriminate, you would have no problem with having the feds forcing states to allow businesses to voluntarily desegregate, if the real reason is that the individual and businesses are paramount. Yet Rockwellians with some regularity argue that feds violated states rights during the civil rights era by forcing schools and other government facilities to desegregate, among other things.
This is a classic “bait and switch” argument. There is a huge difference between “the feds forcing states to allow businesses to voluntarily desegregate” vs. the feds “forcing schools and other [local] government facilities to desegregate”. Specifically, the former involves the feds upholding private property rights against state/local government encroachment, while the latter involves the feds dictating to state/local governments how they are to manage “their” property. Again, this difference rests on the crucial distinction between “public” and private property — a distinction that many “libertarians” seem determined to obscure, as part of their effort to eviscerate the true, radical nature of libertarianism, and turn it into simply another variant of left-authoritarianism.
L, you seem to think there’s such a thing as “L-ism.” I don’t buy it, particularly when individuals who use the label “L” sometimes disagree.
Yes, I am well aware (as are most other regular readers of IPR, I’m sure) that you embrace the nihilistic idea that words have no meanings, and can be used to mean literally anything. Fortunately, there are very few people that share your bizarre beliefs.
First, thanks to Jim for explaining the decentralization concept much better than I did. Upon rereading my own explanation of it, I can see why people were confused. That’s what I get for trying to debate political philosophy with a hangover. 🙂 (For those who are more interested in the correct libertarian position on decentralization, I recommend this article: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/02/ryan-mcmaken/anarcho-capitalism-radical-decentralization/)
Second, call me cynical, but I have a hard time believing that all this sudden concern over decentralization by the LP of NC is anything more than a convenient fig leaf for supporting the use of force to achieve their preferred cultural outcome. I have to think that if the situation were reversed, and it was the state government overturning some rural town’s “discriminatory” law, the NC LP would be standing up and applauding. But maybe I’m wrong. If so, maybe someone can show me some evidence of the NC LP supporting decentralization, when it does not lead to a PC outcome. Just one case. Please.
Finally, I notice that none of the NC LP supporters addressed this point:
For the record, I actually think the most libertarian position (and the one that the NC LP should have taken) would be to agree with the part of HB 2 that protects private property rights, while upholding the right of local governments to set the rules on “their” property. (The latter is still a poor solution, but probably the best that can be done, as long as government ownership of property is deemed legitimate.)
Is there any reason why the NC LP couldn’t have applauded the clearly libertarian part of HB 2, while still noting that they had a problem with the other part? Wouldn’t that have been far better than arguing that since the law isn’t perfect, it should be repealed in its entirety, especially since the alternative (the local Charlotte law) is far, far worse, from a libertarian perspective?
JP: “…the only people still complaining about the bathroom gender thing…”
You write this as if it were old news: “still complaining”.
You probably think everybody studies such news items as much as you. Sorry, they don’t. For the vast majority of Americans, probably they may have heard of this issue a maximum of once. If that.
Jim
The funny thing is that I notice the only people still complaining about the bathroom gender thing are men. I know exactly none–as in zero, nada–women who care. Is it possible that females aren’t the ‘fraidy cats some men think we are?
http://web-images.chacha.com/images/Gallery/7501/crazy-things-you-ll-only-see-at-walmart-1120985074-feb-2-2015-1-600×400.jpg
If there are complaints, would any reasonable store owner allow “her” to use the girl’s bathroom?
John Byrd: “I agree with Amnesty International, as long as we also acknowledge that it is a fundamental right of trans women to be acknowledged as women.”
Sorry, no deal. I am an individual, and I do not “Acknowledge” any “right” of “trans women to be acknowledged as women”. And, I think all other individuals, and companies, and corporations, should have that same right. Nor do I think that governments are obliged to “acknowledge” such, either.
“It may be possible to change gender but it is not possible to change sex. That is chromosomal.”
Then bathroom separation should be on the basis of gender, not sex. Simple enough.
“Why not say, instead:
” “It should be a matter to be resolved by the owners of the buildings containing the bathrooms, and the government has no business getting involved.” ”
A) Not an option when local government is the owner
B) Not the question; the question is whether, in cases where local government does get involved, whether it’s OK for state government to intervene.
You said: “It should be a matter to be resolved between the people of that town and the town officials, the state government has no business getting involved.”
Why not say, instead:
” “It should be a matter to be resolved by the owners of the buildings containing the bathrooms, and the government has no business getting involved.”
That’s the Libertarian position.
It may be possible to change gender but it is not possible to change sex. That is chromosomal.
I agree with Amnesty International, as long as we also acknowledge that it is a fundamental right of trans women to be acknowledged as women.
According to Amnesty International, it is a fundamental right of women to have sex-segregated bathrooms. It is reasonable for the public to use sex as the basis of bathroom segregation in public places.
Trans individuals don’t “wake up one day” and decide they are trans, that’s ridiculous. It’s something huge that they live with and often take years to come to terms with, come out of the closet and then years more to transition. And yes it’s a long standing right, because trans people have always used the facilities of the sex they appear to be, act and dress as. No one checks birth certificates to enter the restroom, so there are trans people using restrooms of the sex they identify with in any state and city you go to right now and always have been.
It should be a matter to be resolved between the people of that town and the town officials, the state government has no business getting involved.
Russ Woodall: “It decreases the liberty of trans individuals using local government facilities in schools, courts etc., and of the local voters to determine policy for their own towns’ local government facilities, so long as they exist.”
By saying, “decreases the liberty…” I notice you are assuming that trans individuals currently have a “liberty” to “use local government facilities in schools”. Well, maybe in a few very recent cases (within the last 1-2 years, maybe), but that certainly doesn’t qualify as a longstanding ‘right’. Are you saying that prior to, say, 2012 a man could simply wake up one day, decide he’s a woman, and visit the newly-appropriate bathroom? I very much doubt that!
It is reasonable for the public to determine policies at public places. However, it is not reasonable for the public to vote away liberty from business owners.
It decreases the liberty of trans individuals using local government facilities in schools, courts etc., and of the local voters to determine policy for their own towns’ local government facilities, so long as they exist.
One way of looking at this: does the NC law increase or decrease liberty? The answer is that it increases the liberty of business owners because it causes business owners to reacquire the liberty to decide bathroom policy, which the local government had usurped.
Tony Galtieri: ““Generally, it is better to have decisions made at the lowest level. ”
“Great, so we agree that if they city of Charlotte wants have a non-discrimination policy in its local government schools, and other city buildings, that the state of NC should not intervene”.
Jim: If that “non-discrimination policy” ONLY applies to government buildings, fine. But that isn’t what the Charlotte city policy stated, BTW. Instead, it required that local businesses adopt ITS policy.
Jim: “So you see, as long as you recognize that “the lowest level” is individuals, companies, and corporations,”
Tony Galtieri: So, if you have no problem with states forcing cities to allow businesses to discriminate,… ”
Uh, “forcing cities to allow businesses to discriminate”? I think you’re warping the issue. As a default (libertarian) position, I think it’s obvious that businesses (and individuals) should be allowed to discriminate. That’s based on the concept of individual freedom. Governments should have a powerful burden of proof to show why any prohibition of discrimination would be okay, under libertarian principles.
Tony Galtieri: “…you would have no problem with having the feds forcing states to allow businesses to voluntarily desegregate,”
I think this amounts to the Feds prohibiting States from REQUIRING businesses to segregate. However, since I think that businesses should make their own decision, I would have no problem with this. And I suspect that a lot of this was going on prior to the 1960’s, too.
Tony Galtieri: ” if the real reason is that the individual and businesses are paramount. Yet Rockwellians with some regularity argue that feds violated states rights during the civil rights era by forcing schools and other government facilities to desegregate, among other things.”
You are mentioning two types of entities: “individuals and businesses”, first, and “states…schools…and other government facilities”, second. Section VII of the 1965 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination by businesses. The rest of it prohibited discrimination by government entities. Section VII was simply wrong, in my estimation, because I see nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the Federal Government power to prohibit private entities (individuals, businesses, corporations) from engaging in any discrimination they choose.
As for the fight between the Feds and the States, the Fourteenth Amendment is involved. Arguably, its ratification was extorted by the North, against the Southern states. While it is supposed to guarantee “equal protection of the laws”, that guarantee doesn’t address the question of whether those “laws” should exist, in the forms they do.
In any case, we can’t always expect libertarianism to have the answer, since the fight amounts to two governmental entities that BOTH should not exist, arguably.
“Is this true? Is that what HB 2 actually says?”
Yes, it is.
” Who actually “owns” local governmental buildings? ”
The local governments do, whether you consider their role to be one of caretaker or not. Under decentralism, the proper remedy if local governments violate their role as caretakers is to vote them out, or sue them in the local courts, or in extreme cases to overthrow them, not to turn to the next higher level of government to solve local problems.
And if we say on the other hand that it’s OK to turn to higher levels of government to correct problems with local governments, you can’t at the same time logically employ the “states rights” argument the next time the feds do the same thing.
James Welby: ““More specifically, it is better to have a non-libertarian local law than a non-libertarian state law,”
“Therefore, HB2 is wrong in overriding local laws.”
But best of all is leaving the decision up to the individual property owner. So to the extent HB 2 does that, HB2 is right.
James Welby: ““upholding the right of local governments to set the rules on “their” property.””
“Which is violated by HB2.”
Is this true? Is that what HB 2 actually says? Who actually “owns” local governmental buildings? They were presumably paid for, by the taxes paid by thousands of citizens in the past. The current local government amounts to a form of caretaker.
“Generally, it is better to have decisions made at the lowest level. ”
Great, so we agree that if they city of Charlotte wants have a non-discrimination policy in its local government schools, and other city buildings, that the state of NC should not intervene. And please, no asides about how all of that property should be privatized, since that is not about to happen right now.
“So you see, as long as you recognize that “the lowest level” is individuals, companies, and corporations,”
So, if you have no problem with states forcing cities to allow businesses to discriminate, you would have no problem with having the feds forcing states to allow businesses to voluntarily desegregate, if the real reason is that the individual and businesses are paramount. Yet Rockwellians with some regularity argue that feds violated states rights during the civil rights era by forcing schools and other government facilities to desegregate, among other things.
Roy Weller: “Which majority – local, state or federal? When it comes to struggles between the federal and state governments over slavery, segregation, establishment of religion, and so on, the Rothbard-Rockwellites claim that decentralism is more important than individual rights. But when it comes to conflicts between states and local governments, they forget their decentralism and side with the states.”
In the specific case of HB 2 (at least, part of it) the rule it adopts is simply that the building-owners have the right to decide what policy to use. THAT is decision-making at the lowest level, and is NOT decision making at a higher level, at the level of local government. So THAT is the ultimate “decentralism”. Odd that you don’t see that, huh? Maybe you are a statist?
Roy Weller: “discrimination and establishment of religion in their government buildings (so long as they exist) that’s OK with you?”
At least in America, one factor is the First Amendment, which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Strictly speaking, that would seem to apply only to the (Federal) Congress, although the 1st has long been interpreted as to applying to all State and local governments too..
Roy Weller: “What if the majority at a state level want that but in a given town they don’t?”
On the specific issue of religion, they don’t get that, because of the 1st Amendment. But depending on other issues, they might, at least under current American law. (which, of course, isn’t necessarily Libertarian.) Give us an example of an issue that isn’t already foreclosed at the level of the U.S. Constitution.
RC:”Odd, since NC Ls took a different position. Did you read the story? There more than doubt, there’s an opposing L viewpoint.”
People are sometimes confused. In this case, I think the LPNC people were swayed towards the position of political-correctness, not libertarian-ness.
RC: “If decentralization sometimes leads to LESS liberty, do you recognize that your bias toward decentralization needs to be taken on a case by case basis?”
Langa’s answer to this is quite correct. Generally, it is better to have decisions made at the lowest level. But where you (and others) have gone wrong is not recognizing that “the lowest level” is actually the people who own the buildings where the bathrooms are, NOT some form of local government. So you see, as long as you recognize that “the lowest level” is individuals, companies, and corporations, there is nothing inconsistent between “libertarian decisions” and “decisions at the lowest level”. Only people who assume that “the lowest level” must mean “the lowest level of government” are confused.
But then again, they are the statists, aren’t they?
“More specifically, it is better to have a non-libertarian local law than a non-libertarian state law,”
Therefore, HB2 is wrong in overriding local laws.
“upholding the right of local governments to set the rules on “their” property.”
Which is violated by HB2.
L, you seem to think there’s such a thing as “L-ism.” I don’t buy it, particularly when individuals who use the label “L” sometimes disagree.
I think the NC LP made a mistake getting involved in the matter. It seems reasonable to say, “We don’t think government should micro-manage this issue,” if asked, and leave it at that.
For the record, I actually think the most libertarian position (and the one that the NC LP should have taken) would be to agree with the part of HB 2 that protects private property rights, while upholding the right of local governments to set the rules on “their” property. (The latter is still a poor solution, but probably the best that can be done, as long as government ownership of property is deemed legitimate.)
It is, however, a potential teachable moment, not because of the issue per se, but how to handle ridiculous, tangential issues. I suggest not wasting time on them.
Yet you continue to insist on bringing up “whites only lunch counters” (a ridiculous, tangential issue if there ever was one) at every conceivable opportunity.
Stop deflecting, Roy. While I think you are vastly oversimplifying and mischaracterizing the positions of Rothbard and Rockwell (more about that below), let’s assume for a second that your assertions are correct. What the hell does that have to do with whether the NC LP is justified in supporting a law that massively violates property rights? It seems like your argument is, “Well, some people who claim to be libertarians took some non-libertarian positions, so I guess that means other libertarians are justified in taking non-libertarian positions, too.” In other words, two wrongs make a right — is that your claim?
And as for what happens in government buildings, I really don’t think libertarianism has a good answer, other than the obvious point that there should be no government buildings. Again, if people don’t like whatever policies they institute, hopefully that will lead to more pressure to privatize those functions.
Finally, as to your point about decentralization, I think the correct libertarian argument is that when it comes to non-libertarian policies (which is the vast majority of them), it is better to have them at lower levels of government, since they are easier to change, or at least avoid, than they would be if they were at a higher level. But that doesn’t mean that decentralization trumps libertarianism. More specifically, it is better to have a non-libertarian local law than a non-libertarian state law, and it is also better to have a non-libertarian state law than a non-libertarian federal law. But it is better to have a libertarian law, at any level, than to have a non-libertarian law, at any level.
And in case it’s not obvious, just because I link to something from the Mises Institute (or Cato, or C4SS, or any other libertarian group), that doesn’t mean that I am thereby endorsing every single thing that every single person from those groups has ever said. I am, however, prepared to defend the specific arguments made in the Cordato article that I linked to, if you would care to dispute them, rather than continuing with these silly “two wrongs make a right” games.
L: So, read the link to the Mises blog post, and tell me exactly which part of it is wrong.
Roy: In a free society based on property rights and free markets, as all free societies must be, a privately owned business would have the right to decide whether or not it wants separate bathrooms strictly for men and women biologically defined, bathrooms for men and women subjectively or psychologically defined, completely gender neutral bathrooms with no labels on the doors, or no bathrooms at all.
Me: Wrong? I wish the world were so simple as to boil down to simple right/wrong decisions. If I understand my former colleague Roy’s view, I could rewrite his ‘graph to say:
* In a free society based on property rights and free markets, as all free societies must be, a privately owned business would have the right to decide whether or not it wants [lunch counters for whites only]. *
If I understand the LvMI version of L-ism correctly, they would nod in agreement with this re-write. In my judgment, that’s a counterproductive non-starter. Absolutism in regard to property rights leads to such conclusions.
Now, personally, the idea of forcing businesses to allow males who identify as females to use the women’s facilities seems just ridiculous to me. Micro-managing bathroom usage policies is a tremendous waste of time and effort, as I see it. Getting involved is a silly controversy also seems like a waste of time as well, unless someone had a legislative seat and specific legislation was being considered.
It is, however, a potential teachable moment, not because of the issue per se, but how to handle ridiculous, tangential issues. I suggest not wasting time on them.
For the purpose of your answer, let’s pretend you don’t have a magic wand that privatizes all government property anything like immediately.
“there is nothing whatsoever libertarian about standing up for a law (whether federal, state or local) that tramples property rights.”
According to the Rothbard-Rockwell bunch there is, if it’s supposedly based on the decentralist notion of states rights against the federal government, even if it’s to uphold slavery, Jim Crow, etc. But decentralism goes right in the trash can when it comes to any cities that want to be more socially liberal than the states they are located in.
“as long as there is, it should be run in the way that best serves the majority.”
Which majority – local, state or federal? When it comes to struggles between the federal and state governments over slavery, segregation, establishment of religion, and so on, the Rothbard-Rockwellites claim that decentralism is more important than individual rights. But when it comes to conflicts between states and local governments, they forget their decentralism and side with the states.
Additionally, when you say “as long as there is, it should be run in the way that best serves the majority” just how literally do you mean that? If a majority in a given locale wants racial and religious discrimination and establishment of religion in their government buildings (so long as they exist) that’s OK with you? What if the majority at a state level want that but in a given town they don’t?
NC LP got it right.
Only if “right” means something other than “libertarian” — because there is nothing whatsoever libertarian about standing up for a law (whether federal, state or local) that tramples property rights. If you want to put your cultural dogma ahead of property rights, fine, but you can’t claim to be “libertarian” in doing so.
As for “public” property, there should be none, but as long as there is, it should be run in the way that best serves the majority. If you don’t like that, then perhaps you can join us libertarians in calling for the total abolition of such “public” property.
Odd, since NC Ls took a different position. Did you read the story? There more than doubt, there’s an opposing L viewpoint.
If decentralization sometimes leads to LESS liberty, do you recognize that your bias toward decentralization needs to be taken on a case by case basis?
As is so often the case, you have things exactly backwards. The point about decentralization was me playing Devil’s Advocate for the NC LP.
I don’t want to waste time explaining this stuff to you, since you really don’t care whether the policy is libertarian or not. So, read the link to the Mises blog post, and tell me exactly which part of it is wrong.
NC LP got it right. The impetus behind the bathroom bigots is transphobia. Logically, there is no or virtually no record of any trans person committing assault in restrooms, but there is a very real danger for trans people if they use their birth gender’s bathroom. A trans woman or girl who acts and dresses as a female, and in some cases has had surgery and/or hormones to make them anatomically female, is in danger when using a men’s or boys bathroom. A trans man may seem to be a threat to cis women when using the womens room according to birth gender even if they aren’t.
What the “libertarian” defenders of HB2 don’t mention is that this bill mandates bathroom bigotry in government buildings, including ones where the unfortunate captives have little or no choice to be in such as schools and courthouses. And while libertarians may not be big fans of government employment, one might reasonably argue that at least so long as it does exist it should not be made practically impossible for trans individuals to get such jobs because they are put in an untenable situation as far as using the bathroom goes. I don’t know enough about the bill as to whether it mandates that people in police custody, jails and prisons in NC be treated according to birth gender, but that would fit in with the hateful bill’s “logic.” That would be a situation that would be extremely dangerous for trans people.
The other part of the bill is overriding local ordinances that prevent private discrimination. While those local ordinances do violate the rights of private businesses to be bigots on their own property, it is interesting that the Rothbard-Rockwell crowd, which always is the first to trumpet the “right” of states to pass socially reactionary laws even when they clearly violate the rights of individuals because bringing in the federal government to overrule these states centralizes power (slavery and segregation for example), also now side with states that come in and overrule cities and counties that prefer to manage their local affairs according to local custom if that local custom happens to be less reactionary than the states. Thus, we can see that the Rothbard-Rockwell crowd’s higher value is social reactionary views, even if they require government force, and that decentralism is only useful to them when it is in the service of such views but goes out the window when it goes against them.
I do not understand this position at all. https://mises.org/blog/we-need-separation-bathroom-and-state … this is not about LGBT, it’s not about discrimination, it’s about private property, freedom of association and gov’t tyranny. No idea why the NC LP is coming down on the side of tyranny. I hope I’m not enlightening LP members when I tell them that gov’t did NOT build these businesses … or that HB2 allows any business that freely chooses to (note that voluntarism … sort of sounds like libertarianism vs the alternative which is tyranny) to allow anatomical males in the ladies shower. It just says that they can’t be forced. It amazes me that the NC LP is on the side of force and tyranny.
Bravo for LPNC standing up for Human Rights. HB2 is big, authoritarian government that we should fight.
L: I don’t think there’s any doubt that HB 2 is closer to the actual libertarian position than the local law that it strikes down.
Me: Odd, since NC Ls took a different position. Did you read the story? There more than doubt, there’s an opposing L viewpoint.
If decentralization sometimes leads to LESS liberty, do you recognize that your bias toward decentralization needs to be taken on a case by case basis?
It could have been said, only half in jest, in 1980 (say) that Libertarian policy will never win…because by the time it wins, it will have been co-opted by some other party’s position. Sadly, by the time we have come to win, people calling themselves “libertarians” don’t even recognize the libertarian position if it is adopted by somebody else.
Yeah, I would say they got it wrong.
The only counterargument would be that libertarians should generally favor decentralization (ideally all the way down to the individual level).
But in terms of this specific issue, I don’t think there’s any doubt that HB 2 is closer to the actual libertarian position than the local law that it strikes down.
Langa:
So, the NC libertarians got it wrong. The reason, presumably, is that they were too busy being PC to be libertarian. Shame on them. They should be informed of their screw-up.
The correct libertarian position on this issue is extremely simple, and is summarized very well here:
https://mises.org/blog/we-need-separation-bathroom-and-state
Wow! Dr. Grundmann… just wow!
This is a fantastic example of how – A) Our nation is dying, and B) the Libertarian Party is both totally controlled by the Plantation Masters of our nation and utterly pathetic. YOU CAN’T EVEN DEFEND WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM PERVERTS!! Where are the men, ANY men, in the party who will stand up in defense of women and children and against these self-mutilating psychotics called ” transgenders?” Answer – There are NO men in the party; only males ( inferior/sick men ) who are completely castrated and now bow to political correctness, their feminist capos, and the Plantation Masters who have socially engineered them into groveling puppies who crawl for the dog treats and crumps which their Masters toss to them. Our nation was founded by REAL men – Washington, Henry, Jefferson. What a catastrophic disaster has happened to our nation to reduce the men into quivering and totally spineless piles of jello who cannot even stand up to outright perverts in defense of the women and children of the nation. How utterly shameful that you Libertarian cowards are so fantastically pathetic that you can’ t even stop perverts from attacking women and children. You can’t even protect little girls or your own daughters!!! Our nation deserves damnation for having such puny wusses and wimps who are already ” transgender ” themselves; i.e.; they pretend to be men on the surface while they are really, and will forever to be, cowering little baby boys who stand for nothing and are slaves to anything, everything, and forever.
And the state doesn’t need to ” determine gender ” as there are ONLY 2 genders – men and women. Not 3. Not 23. Not 73. Just and only 2!!! Anyone who claims otherwise is simply a socially engineered slave to the Plantation Masters.
The Libertarian Party can keep their chains and wear them proudly. The LP can keep being a factory for manufacturing castrated males. The LP can work to legalize child molestation which is exactly what they will do the first moment they get their chance to do so. After all, does anyone REALLY think that the spineless castrated creeps of the LP will lift one finger to stop child molestation when The Plantation Masters finally order it to be legalized? Answer – no possible way.
The Constitution Party will represent men – REAL men; the true and only defenders of our nation, our familes, our future, and our women and children.
We will defend our nation while you creeps crawl, grovel, and lick the feet of your Masters.
The article says, ““The state has no authority to determine gender,” the unanimous resolution states. HB 2 also “unduly intrudes state authority into local decision-making and unreasonably limits the ability of the citizens … to govern themselves.” In addition, the bill reduces individual rights because it “bans citizens from using state courts to remedy discrimination” ”
I really have to question whether (all of) this statement is truly compatible with libertarianism. When it says, “unreasonably limits the ability of the citizens … to govern themselves.”, I must remind people that the very concept of libertarianism amounts to an obstruction of the crowd’s abilities to coerce individuals, an activity that could be described (by a non-libertarian) as “limit[ing] the ability of the citizens…to govern themselves”.
I have nothing against blocking discrimination BY GOVERNMENT. But discrimination by individuals, corporations, companies, associations, etc , isn’t the business of government to “fix”.
If anything, the sentiment displayed by these NC libertarians amounts to a form of what I’d call “cartoon libertarians”, those that are merely crypto-liberals, choosing a libertarian-sounding way to describe what they really want to do. If the state had prohibited the “discrimination” that the localities would be allowed to prohibit, absent HB 2, I feel certain these NC “libertarians” would have absolutely no problem with this alternative display of statism. So, they are not really libertarians at all.
That doesn’t mean that I “like” HB2. I think that bathroom policy should, ideally, be set by the people who own those bathrooms, not government. But those protesting against HB2 simply want to get localities to force such owners to follow local policies, rather than state-defined policies.