This is taken from The Random Spoon Blog: original can be read here.
This has been building for a while now, and now that the cat’s out of the bag, someone has to say it: Libertarians that have a problem with Gary Johnson’s position on anti-discrimination need to get over themselves. Seriously.
Radicals in the Libertarian Party are responding to Gary Johnson’s stance on anti-discrimination laws – a stance they’ve always known he had – like the fainting damsel in distress at the sight of the bad guy.
“Woe unto us Libertarians! Heaven’s no! Wherefore art thou Liberty?”
Don’t do that.
We’re talking about Gary Johnson. Lest you forget, here is a guy that managed to get elected as a Republican in a state that was 2 to 1 Democrat, and manage to ACTUALLY cut spending. Does that compute, you “principled” Libertarians? He actually DID it. He also vetoed hundreds of terrible bills, and still managed to get re-elected.
You can comb through his record and probably find a few things that are not so Libertarian, but that is why you need to read this carefully.
STOP THAT!
What is wrong with you? Do I have to agree with everything the man says? Can’t I just support him because he’s actually effective at minimizing government? Can’t he be imperfect?
“No!” some of you say.
Ok.
Walk me through this then.
“He failed basic Libertarianism. Freedom of association is Liberty 101.”
He didn’t fail.
If you are not already familiar with Johnson’s position on anti-discrimination laws, I’ll sum it up: he wouldn’t change them. That’s pretty much it.
He supports the Civil Rights Act, which makes it unlawful for private businesses to discriminate against people on the basis of religion, sex, race, etc. In the recent debate on Fox, he defended this, even if it meant forcing a Jew to bake a cake for a Nazi.
That does sound pretty horrible, until you realize that is exactly how it is now. Right now, a neo-Nazi could sue a Jewish baker for refusing him service. That’s kind of been the source of a lot of humor among Libertarians lately, in light of the incidents with Christian bakers and photographers.
The point here is not to say this is just or Libertarian in any way. It’s not.
My point is: So what?
Sometimes the Libertarian position is not always the practical position, which pretty much sums up Gary Johnson’s campaign. He’s not a sellout, because I’m sure he believes this. But does that mean he can’t be a Libertarian?
Dude, if Gary Johnson can’t be a Libertarian, then we are ALL screwed.
If you actually listen to the way he defended this position, it reveals a couple of things. While the end result may still be incorrect from a Libertarian standpoint, he demonstrates an understanding of what governing is really like. He says things like “people will get hurt,” after painting a picture of a town with only one baker. The fact that the free market will theoretically be there to supply any underserved customers is besides the point.
In his scenario, racial and ethnic discrimination can take on a mob-like nature that the state may not be able to manage, even if it wanted to. We’ve already seen how governments fail to respond to riots (even if we Libertarians like to wax poetic about the times in which the government is all TOO good at it).
So I don’t think Gary Johnson is thinking about this issue in an abstract, philosophical way. He just simply can’t believe that getting rid of these laws at this point in time would be a good idea. There are some places in this country where, if the laws were repealed tomorrow, people probably would get hurt.
It’s an argument worth pursuing, and if all the Libertinos would just stop shouting for two seconds, maybe we can learn something.
But it’s safe to say this is NOT Liberty 101. Like many issues, it’s complex when translated to reality.
But maybe you still disagree. Fine. Libertarians are stubborn, myself included. I get it. But you should at least be able to see why this is a smaller issue than you realize.
Think of it this way. Any time a politician eliminates a tax, unjust law, or government program, it is a plus 1 for liberty. Every time a politician does the opposite, it is a negative 1. If a politician says he won’t change an unjust law, that is disappointing, but not a negative.
You can say that we shouldn’t be keeping score, but why not? Is that what we do in a way when we decide who to vote for? This candidate has more stars in the “pro” column, and that candidate has more stars in the “con” column? If you take into account his experience, his relatively good manner of speaking about issues and his ability to suggest actual solutions instead of just rhetoric… I mean, c’mon.
All of his pluses CLEARLY outweigh the negatives.
I mean seriously, he’s not talking about closing up the borders and shipping out the illegals. His lists of government programs are lists of programs he wants to GET RID OF, not create. Stop acting like he’s the next LBJ.
The strange thing is that Gary Johnson’s critics seem to acknowledge that he would probably be the most effective President of all the Libertarians running, but they would rather shoot him down than respectfully correct him and move on.
“He just put the final nail in the coffin of his campaign!”
If you say so. That’s a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy. And you know what’s really ironic? The radicals who are shooting him down the most are the ones that like Austin Petersen even less, and he’s exactly the person they are going to hand the nomination to.
Austin was pretty much the runner-up to Gary, and he’s weathered the storm of Libertarian in-fighting just fine. He’s smart enough to get support from outside the party, and the radicals are ensuring his victory.
Remember, this is the guy that goes on rants about secret Libertarian elite conspiracy theories, and has openly stated that he does not support our party’s Statement of Principles. He has done everything he can to alienate some of the most energized members of our party, and has made personal attacks against other candidates and activists. Perhaps more importantly, he has a lot going against him, like his lack of qualifications, no name recognition, young age, etc.
The very same people who see that in Petersen are going to ensure his victory. And it reminds me of a story that I was told at the convention recently.
Years ago, when the window of opportunity opened like it has now, the Libertarian Party was set to nominate a person that would have been fantastic for the party. People inside and outside the party knew who he was, and he was by most measures a compelling candidate. When it came time to give speeches, though, another candidate gave a very rousing speech and the delegation ended up nominating him instead. When it was too late, they found out that the guy had almost no money and no campaign staff. He ended up being a terrible candidate, but the delegates chose him anyway because he said all the nicey words that Libertarian radicals like. He passed the purity test, but a huge opportunity was squandered to do it.
This has to stop. IT HAS TO STOP.
I could not be more opposed to the Libertarian Radical Caucus at this point. I was starting to warm up to them, but that’s just because the idea of having principles is Romantic and sexy. But principles without pragmatism is suicide. We may as well go off and start a book club and learn to pick up snobbish dialects so that we can all sit around and navel-gaze.
We’ll be 100% correct and principled in our prison cells, while the country burns to the ground.
Gary Johnson is wrong on anti-discrimination laws, and I don’t care.
You can spit in the face of the guy that is suing the debate commission to get into the debates. You can hate the most qualified person we have to actually be president.
The more you talk about how Gary Johnson is not Libertarian enough, the more you turn Libertarianism into an exclusive club, populated by whackjobs.
Cut him some slack, guys.
RC: “Jim, yes, NAPsters are OK with fighting back. But it sounds like you believe US intervention in Iraq I was justifiable. That’s the heresy.”
You keep ignoring what I am actually saying. And, first, you need to distinguish between 1992 and 2003. The fact that your statement above doesn’t mention that, suggests that you are trying to mislead.
The 2003 invasion was thoroughly, completely, and absolutely stupid and unjustified, and I think it was done simply because Bush 43 wanted to avenge his idiot father’s failure to take out Saddam in 1992, which he could have easily done.
Some version of the 1992 Gulf War I was defensible, at least under NON-libertarian principles. Saddam would have been worth investing $1 million in an assassination attempt, not months or even years of occupation, at least under non-libertarian philosophy.
Jim, yes, NAPsters are OK with fighting back. But it sounds like you believe US intervention in Iraq I was justifiable. That’s the heresy.
RC: “Jim: There was arguably a justification for Iraq War I in 1992, because Iraq had agressed, but it should have included a complete re-think of Kuwait.”
me: I don’t agree, but you do realize that yours is a heretical position with the NAPster set, right?
I didn’t say that this advice was “libertarian”, now did I?!? I am capable of both kinds of thought: If asked to change the existing (non-libertarian) world to improve it, that is one mode of thought. A second mode of thought involves implementing a libertarian world.
That said, what part of my suggestion is “heretical”. Iraq had indeed aggressed against Kuwait. Fighting back wouldn’t be automatically wrong.
>I wonder which one will get more notice?
This article received 100+ comments in a few days. The Newsweek article has received two comments in a few days. It is possible that plenty of people read but don’t comment much on Newsweek articles. How wonderful that we can have both.
http://www.newsweek.com/must-jew-bake-cake-nazi-same-sex-marriage-lakewood-mullins-craig-447427
> It would cause a good intentioned law to boomerang around and bite people in their asses. It is a cunning strategy to use an anti-liberty law against those that want to limit liberty.
It might if that were a common results. It seems very uncommon for those laws to be used in such a fashion.
Jim: There was arguably a justification for Iraq War I in 1992, because Iraq had agressed, but it should have included a complete re-think of Kuwait.
me: I don’t agree, but you do realize that yours is a heretical position with the NAPster set, right?
I like Gary Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act that would force a Jewish baker bake a cake for a Nazi. It would cause a good intentioned law to boomerang around and bite people in their asses. It is a cunning strategy to use an anti-liberty law against those that want to limit liberty.
“yet get hardcore when we are supporting cops dragging blacks off lunch counters, or Trans out of bathrooms?”
I don’t know where you got the idea that I support either one of those things.
I opposed the Charlotte law REQUIRING private businesses to run their restrooms a certain way.
I opposed the North Carolina law FORBIDDING private businesses to run their restrooms a certain way.
Because private businesses are private businesses no matter how badly people want to pretend they are “public” when it suits them. And property belongs to the property’s owners, not to the state.
Any private business that thinks it should get to peek at my daughter’s crotch to decide which bathroom they’ll let her use can just say goodbye to ever selling me anything. I’m sure we can find SOME place that will let her pee, and I’ll spend my money there. And any state agent who tries to pull the crotch-checking shit while I’m present won’t like what happens.
Jim wrote:
“I’ve never seen a business “holding itself out as a public accommodation business”.”
Actually most businesses do, unless they are private clubs which can discriminate.
Jim ranted:
“Bullshit! Everybody in a nation does (or, ideally, should) receive “government protections and privileges” But that doesn’t justify allowing said government to put whatever controls and restrictions it wants to on that population. And in any case, in America at least, it turns upside down the idea that government derives its power from the consent of the people, rather than vice versa.
Go find the closest Fascist or Communist nation you can, and move there. You’d be much happer, for sure.”
Ah yes, the purging. Last thing we need are more people voting Libertarian. Good work!
The Government grants very few of us “privileges” (a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.) BUT the government does or should protect our rights.
Why am I forced to protect your privileges?
Considering you seem to be supporting corporatism aka fascism, maybe you need to go find the closest Fascist nation you can, and move there. You’d be much happer, for sure
Thomas Knapp wrote:
“I live in a city of 100,000, and so far I’ve noticed a grand total of one business here that “holds itself out as a public accommodation business.” It’s a construction supply place that has “Contractor’s” in its name, so it includes the language “open to the public” on its signage.
It’s not businesses that hold themselves out as “public accommodations”. It’s government that insists that anyone who does business is a “public accommodation.””
I understand but their doors are open and they aren’t checking membership, so most are public. I know it is a government category, so is liability limits. My point is why is it ok for us to be inconsistent in areas which grant the few the power to oppress, yet get hardcore when we are supporting cops dragging blacks off lunch counters, or Trans out of bathrooms?
In a system without privilege, sure, we can be hardcore but we aren’t even close. Our system has been about keeping down the minority since our inception. We should not be in a hurry to get back to that world.
My replies inline:
Jim: RC is clearly an ass. If we (libertarians) had decided that unpopular positions should be avoided, the Libertarian Party would simply have never come into existence.
RC: Are you the “Jim” who advocates “assassination politics?” Just curious.
Well, I wrote the AP (Assassination Politics; https://cryptome.org/ap.htm) essay in 1995-1996, and I still am convinced that it is not merely desirable, it is in fact inevitable. And if you actually read it, you’ll see my defense of its use according to libertarian principles. As I began publishing it, not only expected, but also hoped, that it would be addressed by libertarian philosophy. Unfortunately, the closest this came was a series of essays by business partners Robert Vroman and Bob Murphy. greenspun[dotkom]/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009ape
“I’m sure I have my “ass” moments, as do we all. But you misunderstand my view, so let me clarify. First, I do think that the LP came into existence with a fatal flaw. Upon reflection, I don’t think the NAP works as a universal political philosophy.”
It may very well be incomplete, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
I do, however, believe that it’s unavoidable to take unpopular positions. I take many of them. I’m pro-choice, for example, and I’m sure that’s unpopular with large percentages of the population.”
Well, I am, too, pro-choice. It’s a harder call that many issues, because it involves (arguably) a third person.
” There’s no getting around it. I believe the minimum wage is a bad idea. I was opposed to the Iraq War throughout. Etc.”
Same here, on minimum wage. People support it if they think it’ll raise their income, but they don’t realize that it may very well cost them a job!
There was arguably a justification for Iraq War I in 1992, because Iraq had agressed, but it should have included a complete re-think of Kuwait. “Democracy” should have been imposed as a cost and condition of setting things straight.
As for Iraq War II, in 2003, I think that was just Idiot Bush 43 trying to avenge his idiot father, Bush 41, for screwing up by not taking out Saddam when he had a chance. It would arguably have been “worth it” if it had cost much less than $50 billion and taken 1/2 year or so, but… (I’m still not defending it from a Libertarian perspective, however.)
“Ls have historically taken unpopularity to extreme levels. Not only pro-choice, but major L thinkers suggest that fetuses are “parasites.” Not only are minimum wages bad ideas, but they and the entire welfare state should be abolished tomorrow. Not only opposition to the Iraq War, but abolition of the military is a moral imperative, per the NAP.”
One of the things I quickly realized about my Assassination Politics essay was that the idea would completely eliminate the need for militaries. I solved David Friedman’s “Hard Problem”. (How do you defend a libertarian, even anarchist society?)
Jim: RC is clearly an ass. If we (libertarians) had decided that unpopular positions should be avoided, the Libertarian Party would simply have never come into existence.
Me: Are you the “Jim” who advocates “assassination politics?” Just curious.
I’m sure I have my “ass” moments, as do we all. But you misunderstand my view, so let me clarify. First, I do think that the LP came into existence with a fatal flaw. Upon reflection, I don’t think the NAP works as a universal political philosophy.
I do, however, believe that it’s unavoidable to take unpopular positions. I take many of them. I’m pro-choice, for example, and I’m sure that’s unpopular with large percentages of the population. There’s no getting around it. I believe the minimum wage is a bad idea. I was opposed to the Iraq War throughout. Etc.
Ls have historically taken unpopularity to extreme levels. Not only pro-choice, but major L thinkers suggest that fetuses are “parasites.” Not only are minimum wages bad ideas, but they and the entire welfare state should be abolished tomorrow. Not only opposition to the Iraq War, but abolition of the military is a moral imperative, per the NAP.
There’s no sense of context, of process, of transition, of potential dislocation. It’s an impatient, sometimes childish, positioning — a brash, rash approach to the wider world that seems more designed to shock than to persuade. There’s I believe a confusion about matters that are general vs. specific. For ex., freedom of association is popular as a GENERAL matter. Whites-only lunch counters, however, are wildly unpopular as a SPECIFIC matter, is my sense.
For me, most of this dysfunction stems from a belief that all morality springs from ONE principle that can be applied to virtually all social matters. I wish that were true, but for me it’s a simplistic and ultimately false premise, as well as being unrealistic and alienating.
I went looking for evidence of Robert Capozzi’s biases and what I see as ‘sabotage-orientation’, and I found this pair of IPR comments from https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/george-phillies-lnc-in-action/ , the first from Capozzi himself and the second from Marc Montoni.
Robert Capozzi January 26, 2011 at 06:40
G: The eyes are not on the constituent groups, they are not on the apparatus, they are on the candidates. Look, the Republicans, the Democrats and every party everywhere has their fringes. Everyone has their fringe moments. Sometimes fringe today is the hottest thing on the charts tomorrow.
Me: Agreed. However, some fringy positions are more toxic than others. Racism-tinged views and gun extremism tends to evoke a certain image. PETA extremism seems generally more benign to more people, since people love animals.
Because there is a popular opinion in LM circles that ALL political matters can be deduced using the NAP, I am called a “Lincoln idolator” and “gun grabber” for my interpretation of the Confederate Elite Insurrection and 2A. I’m neither Lincoln idolator nor gun grabber, but one can see how an absolutist mindset can reach those conclusions.
One who becomes a D knows that not all Ds are PETA extremists, so I don’t think your analogy quite works.
Marc Montoni January 29, 2011 at 15:52
… gun extremism tends to evoke a certain image …
You know, it might be instructive for some people to “embed” in some of the alleged “extremist” groups before dismissing a particular point of view as “extremist”. Take the above use of “gun extremism”, for example. The Virginia Citiizens’ Defense League is probably one of the most extreme pro-gun organizations I know of. Their members often refer to the NRA as a gun-control group, for example. Many of their members have become extremely active in the open-carry movement, and they sponsor heavily-attended rallies at the state capitol to press their agenda.
A few years ago, they were widely referred to as “extreme”; however, they have gotten a heckuva lot of their legislative agenda put into place by constantly calling for what they want, and going back year after year until they’ve gotten it. VCDL is largely responsible for improving Virginia’s concealed carry permit laws, and has educated thousands of law enforcement personnell the right of Virginia citizens to carry openly. If the organization survives and continues to prosper, I have little doubt that in ten years Virginia will have “Vermont carry” (meaning the repeal of laws requiring citizens to have government permission (nee license) in order to carry concealed).
In other words, gun extremism has become mainstream, simply because the gun extremists refused to waver in demanding what they really wanted.
And I know a certain someone is going to yank out that old, tired “private newks” bullshit, so let’s nip that in the bud in advance. Here is a perfectly Libertarian answer to the “private newks” red herring.
As an example, let’s consider the case of Bruce E. Ivins. (and yes, I am aware that even his case may be a concoction.) In any event, as the government fumbled its way through the anthrax case, lo and behold it turned out that the only WMD attack on our nation was a sophisticated product traced to the government’s own biological weapons labs.
Yes, I would say a libertarian case could be made to say that weapons too dangerous for individuals to have can be banned — but only if the government is the first entity that has to comply with the ban. Try thinking about an insurance-based model, both for the government and honest (private) sectors — rather than the current monopoly-on-force model. I’ve said this before, and don’t intend to change my mind.
I have yet to find a VCDL position that wasn’t perfectly compatible with the old, “extremist” LP platform position on guns/self defense/weapons. I have met some folks in the VCDL who have taken their conversion to “gun extremism” and applied it, over time, to other areas of their political philosophy — which means if I’m having a discussion with a few of them, and the subject of repealing drug prohibition comes up, their reaction is likely to be more favorable than that of a random voter in the street.
I think “extremist groups” represent our “best bet” outreach opportunities. These are the groups who have figured out that for “coexistence” to happen in a proto-socialist semi-police-state means that you have to get up off your duff and beat the drums constantly for the reforms you seek.
In my mind, the only real problem facing the LP and libertarianism in general is that there are WAY too many “libertarians” who can’t be bothered to:
– organize their own precict
– pick up a petition form
– run for office
– run an information table (even in their own precinct)
– write letters to the editor, or
– meet with legislators.
However, they just LOVE to waste what must amount to THOUSANDS of hours every month (collectively) sitting behind a computer screen writing breathless screeds about all of the things that are wrong with the LP, and dispensing their own peculiar “wisdom” on how to “fix” the LP. The peculiar wisdom that seems to be “politically correct” within the LP at this moment is that the now-deleted Platform and the consistent Libertarians who were comfortable with it are just a bunch of “extremists”.
Only WORK works. If you are spending more time talking to other libertarians about how flawed their efforts are, then you’re working for the enemy. Stop worrying about the platform, pledge, pragmatism, whatever, and instead do what is really necessary to build a proper political party:
WORK.
It simply never ceases to amaze me how quick some are to participate in online discussions yet can’t be bothered to commit even one real political act a week.
[end of quote]
Full disclosure: My opinion is that there is no such thing as “gun extremism”, at least on the ‘pro’ side. The Founding Fathers made a _decision_ to allow individuals to own all “arms”, where I employ the dictionary definition of “arms” as “objects used as weapons”.
From: http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/
“Part III explains what the Founders and their informed contemporaries understood “arms” to mean in their day: that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear any and all weapons, no matter how destructive.”
Later, the article continues:
“Part III: What “arms” meant, circa 1787
First, a few modern definitions of “arms” present themselves. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.”18 Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”19”
And if you think that the only “arms” are “gunpowder-driven-lead-throwing-machines”, you’ve either got an immense lack of knowledge of history or an inability to read the English language.
So, Robert Capozzi can take his reference to “gun extremism” and stick it where the U.S. Constitution doesn’t shine.
“”Actually [freedom of association] seems to be quite popular…””
“It may well be. I was simply disputing RC’s claim that if a core libertarian position is unpopular, then it should be swept under the rug, or even worse, fully repudiated.”
RC is clearly an ass. If we (libertarians) had decided that unpopular positions should be avoided, the Libertarian Party would simply have never come into existence. Which is apparently exactly what RC secretly (actually,come to think of it, not so secretly) would have wanted to happen.
mark hilgenberg: “I don’t think he is wrong. If a business is holding itself out as a public accommodation business, yet it is not serving the public, that sounds like fraud.”
I’ve never seen a business “holding itself out as a public accomodation business”.
“Also, if they are receiving government protections and privileges though corporate charters, they should be subject to the same rules the governmnets must follow. If not, stop asking the people to cover your liability.”
Bullshit! Everybody in a nation does (or, ideally, should) receive “government protections and privileges” But that doesn’t justify allowing said government to put whatever controls and restrictions it wants to on that population. And in any case, in America at least, it turns upside down the idea that government derives its power from the consent of the people, rather than vice versa.
Go find the closest Fascist or Communist nation you can, and move there. You’d be much happer, for sure.
If they want to be bigots, start a private club and have at it.
Also, if they are receiving government protections and privileges though corporate charters, they should be subject to the same rules the governmnets must follow. If not, stop asking the people to cover your liability.
I agree with the second sentence, but not the first. As I’ve said previously, yes, libertarians should oppose things like non-consensual limited liability, and other forms of crony capitalism. However, that does not mean that as long as those things exist, they should be used to justify de facto government ownership of businesses. That sort of logic only takes us further from libertarianism, and closer to communism.
Well, yeah — that way lies irrelevance.
In 2001, I urged the LNC to pass a resolution opposing the invasion of Afghanistan instead of the milquetoast, middle of the road, contentless piece of crap they did pass that tried to take every side of every possible course. Steve Givot insisted that opposing the invasion would “marginalize” us.
My reply was that 20% of the public opposed the invasion, and that 20% was 40 times our usual presidential vote and 5-10 times our usual congressional vote. We were already marginal. Being with a significant minority and maybe getting that minority on our side is better than hiding under the bed and hoping nobody notices us every damn time.
Actually [freedom of association] seems to be quite popular…
It may well be. I was simply disputing RC’s claim that if a core libertarian position is unpopular, then it should be swept under the rug, or even worse, fully repudiated.
“If a business is holding itself out as a public accommodation business, yet it is not serving the public, that sounds like fraud.”
I’ve been hearing that argument for years.
I live in a city of 100,000, and so far I’ve noticed a grand total of one business here that “holds itself out as a public accommodation business.” It’s a construction supply place that has “Contractor’s” in its name, so it includes the language “open to the public” on its signage.
It’s not businesses that hold themselves out as “public accommodations”. It’s government that insists that anyone who does business is a “public accommodation.”
I don’t think he is wrong. If a business is holding itself out as a public accommodation business, yet it is not serving the public, that sounds like fraud.
Also, if they are receiving government protections and privileges though corporate charters, they should be subject to the same rules the governmnets must follow. If not, stop asking the people to cover your liability.
If they want to be bigots, start a private club and have at it.
From the Wikipedia article, “Freedom of Association”:
“Libertarian[edit]
Part of a series on
Libertarianism
Torch.svg
Origins[show]
Concepts[hide]
Anti-authoritarianism Antimilitarism Anti-statism Anti-war Argumentation ethics Class struggle Communes Counter-economics Crypto-anarchism Decentralization Direct action Dispute resolution organization Economic freedom Egalitarianism Expropriative anarchism Free market Free-market environmentalism Free society Free trade Free will Freedom of association Freedom of contract Gift economy Homestead principle Illegalism Individuality Individualism Individual reclamation Laissez-faire Liberty Limited government Localism Marriage privatization Natural and legal rights Night-watchman state Non-aggression principle Non-interventionism Non-politics Non-voting Participatory economics Polycentric law Private defense agency Propaganda of the deed Property Really Really Free Market Refusal of work Restorative justice Self-governance Self-ownership Spontaneous order Squatting Stateless society Tax resistance Title-transfer theory of contract Voluntary association Voluntary society Wage slavery Workers’ self-management
Schools[show]
People[show]
Aspects[show]
Related topics[show]
Outline of libertarianism
Libertarianism portal
Liberalism portal
v t e
Freedom of association is a term popular in libertarian literature. It is used to describe the concept of absolute freedom to live in a community or be part of an organization whose values or culture are closely related to one’s preferences; or, on a more basic level, to associate with any individual or group of one’s choosing.
The libertarian concept of freedom of association is often criticized from a moral/ethical context. Under laws in such a system, business owners could refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society. Right-libertarians sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Allen Epstein, respond that in a case of refusing service (which thus is a case of the freedom of contract) unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage. Left-libertarians argue that such refusal would place those businesses at an economic disadvantage to those that provide services to all, making them less profitable and eventually leading them to close down.
Libertarians also argue that freedom of association, in a political context, is merely the extension of the right to determine with whom to associate in one’s personal life. For example, somebody who valued good manners or etiquette may not relish associating with someone who was not decent or was uncouth. Or, those opposed to homosexuality may not enjoy associating with gay people. In both instances, a person is voluntarily deciding with whom to associate, based on volition. Libertarians believe that freedom of association, in the political sphere, is not such a fanciful or unrealistic notion[citation needed], since individual human beings already choose with whom they would like to associate based on a variety of reasons.
Libertarians also hold a strong opinion on labour unions, and some support the workers right to choose in an election whether to join a labour union or not. Right to work legislation has been a hot topic of debate within the party, with a majority of Libertarians opposing the legislation[citation needed]. Among libertarians there is no fixed view of unions beyond the principle of freedom of association. Gary Johnson, who won the Libertarian presidential nomination in 2012, presents this principle one way when he is quoted as saying in a 2014 Reddit interview[citation needed] “No worker is forced to take a job in a union shop. If the workers who came before them made the decision to organize into a labour union, they did it for a reason. It might be unfair working conditions, unfair wages, favoritism, or general inequality in the workplace.” Johnson went on to say “Libertarians love history, but we don’t like to see it repeat itself, and the previous decision to organize must be respected by any new hire wishing to seek employment within that shop, or utilize his or her right to seek employment in a non-union shop. Otherwise, the conditions which have been corrected by the presence of a Union will deteriorate.” Conversely libertarians also believe that while freedom of association includes the right for workers to organise as unions and to withdraw their labour it also recognises the right of an employer to replace that labour.[9] Libertarians also believe that where unions undermine the free market or employ coercive or violent tactics such behaviours would be in breach of libertarian principles. Such breaches have frequently been the case with union activity.[10]”
[end of quote from Wikipedia]
“So, if we’re going to reject the answer that libertarianism provides to that question, just because it happens to be an unpopular one”
Actually it seems to be quite popular — it’s the sheep skin under which the right-wing demagogues are hiding their particularist wolvery (freedom of association, but only for white cis-gender heterosexual Christians), a sheep skin which has so far resulted in legislation getting passed in, IIRC, 22 states.
Sounds like catastrophizing to me. If you can’t have it all, just give up…there is no in between.
That’s a complete mischaracterization of my point. I’m not saying that we have to win on every little issue (although of course that would be ideal, but it’s not essential). Rather, I’m saying that this is not a minor issue. It goes straight to the heart of what it means to be a Libertarian (which is why I quoted the pledge).
I will be the first to admit that there are some issues where libertarianism doesn’t give an obvious answer. These usually tend to involve certain types of individuals, such as children, fetuses, non-human organisms, people with severe mental illness/retardation, etc. Intelligent and principled libertarians can have sincere differences of opinion over whether/how the NAP should be applied to those individuals. And that’s perfectly understandable, because the NAP wasn’t really designed with those types of issues in mind.
But in the current case, we’re not discussing an issue that deals with those sorts of “messy” cases. We are dealing with adults of (presumably) sound mind, and the question is simply: When one of those adults does something that some of the others dislike, what methods can legitimately be used to prevent such unpopular behavior? And that is exactly the kind of question libertarianism was designed to answer.
So, if we’re going to reject the answer that libertarianism provides to that question, just because it happens to be an unpopular one, then where does that leave us? We have abandoned our principles entirely, and become just another party dedicated to pandering. And the Ds and Rs have pretty much cornered that market.
Langa: If we’re willing to concede that battle, we might as well just give up completely.
me: Sounds like catastrophizing to me. If you can’t have it all, just give up…there is no in between.
Personally, I’ve liberated myself from the NIOF construct and am more interested in rolling back the State vs. smashing it.
Good luck smashing it. I figure my approach has a 8.5 degree of difficulty, but yours is more like a 9.999999.
For most people in 2016, it lands in exactly the same place…that segregation is permissible under the NAP.
This idea, that opposing the use of force to stop a particular behavior is tantamount to condoning that behavior, is exactly the opposite of what the LP is supposed to be about.
In other words, Libertarians do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. (Hmm, sounds kind of familiar. Where have I heard that before?)
If we’re willing to concede that battle, we might as well just give up completely.
jim: Where are your statistics?
me: Fair. There probably are none, since my perception is the matter is settled in the Public Square. Do you have statistics that say otherwise?
jim: So you get absolutely no ‘mileage’ out of that kind of argument with me, or I suspect with nearly all other libertarians.
me: Yes, given your line of argumentation, I wasn’t holding out a lot of hope that I could persuade you. Whether nearly all self-described Ls think that racial segregation by private businesses should be made legal again is not clear. I suspect very large percentages of self-described Ls would rather not hold that banner high, but I suspect neither of us has any data on the matter…mostly because the matter is considered settled on the broader American scene, if you’d not noticed.
I would say that even if theoretically re-legalizing whites-only lunch counters was on the list of L “advancements,” it would surely be near the bottom of my list, perhaps one above recognizing the right to private nukes. 😉 By the time the more important issues had been fixed, the world would be a so much cooler place, few would notice that a few knuckle-dragging luncheonette owners were acting on their worst impulses.
rc: “tk, it’s all in how one frames the issue. The absolutist FoA argument runs smack into the widely rejected idea that businesses can refuse service to African Americans as was the case during many people’s lifetimes. Only a remnant of Ls hold to such an absolutist interpretation, and perhaps some racists.”
I view what you’re saying as utter and complete nonsense. FoA is far more fundamental, across time and different nations, than a seeming remedy to a form of discrimination that is 50 years old and (in that particular form) existed in perhaps 5% of the world’s population. (America, in other words.)
And you call it “widely rejected”: Partly that’s because under normal circumstances most people _behave_, and there is no reason to discriminate. But in Ferguson Missouri, for example, a part of the business district was burnt down because of misconduct. I think that people (and companies) should retain the right to impose their own form of punishment when such misconduct occurs.
And I have to wonder how you know that only a “remnant” of libertarians hold to the FoA with an obscure and (to me) unjustified exception. Where are your statistics?
rc: “Cake baking may swing too far in the other direction.”
It already has. By far.
rc: You and DT can frame the issue as you wish. You seem to think the prohibition against whites-only lunch counters amounts to “slavery.” My point is that that doesn’t sell, and such a view positions Ls in the camp with the very most disrespected knuckle-dragging elements in America.”
Sure that this “doesn’t sell” among the PC leftists. And your opinion about whether some “most disrespected knuckle-dragging elements” is totally worthless. A stopped clock is right twice a day: Those same knuckle-draggers would have been on the side (in 1960) with the idea that government SHOULD FORCE lunch-counter owners to maintain a white-only policy, precisely contradicting libertarian principles. Because the libertarian principles shouldn’t change, even if others do. So you get absolutely no ‘mileage’ out of that kind of argument with me, or I suspect with nearly all other libertarians.
tk, it’s all in how one frames the issue. The absolutist FoA argument runs smack into the widely rejected idea that businesses can refuse service to African Americans as was the case during many people’s lifetimes. Only a remnant of Ls hold to such an absolutist interpretation, and perhaps some racists.
Cake baking may swing too far in the other direction.
You and DT can frame the issue as you wish. You seem to think the prohibition against whites-only lunch counters amounts to “slavery.” My point is that that doesn’t sell, and such a view positions Ls in the camp with the very most disrespected knuckle-dragging elements in America.
I grant that the NAP can be interpreted in such a manner, but since I only view the NAP as a generally positive sentiment, but of little specific use, I don’t find myself all contorted on issues of public accommodations.
RC,
Too clever by half. You use one definition of segregationism, then switch to the very different dictionary definition when challenged on it. When even Dave Terry has you cornered, you’re probably fighting a lost cause.
dt, are you sure about all this?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/segregationism
AND (4.) There is absolutely NO MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE between what standards I use to invite guests
into my PRIVATELY OWNED HOME or my PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS, as long as both examples are
properly and expressly P-R-I-V-A-T-E !!!!
RC> “I see no evidence that re-legalizing racial segregationism is an issue that any significant subset of the population is willing to entertain.
I don’t know which orifice you pulled this from, but (1.) NO ONE is suggesting that segregation be “RE-LEGALIZED” (2.) ‘segregation’, in the sense that it has been used in this discussion has ALWAYS been legal and (3.) there is no such word as “segregationism”!
tk and jim, I didn’t mean to suggest that there are not specifics that are in dispute now, or that won’t be in dispute in the future.
I see no evidence that re-legalizing racial segregationism is an issue that any significant subset of the population is willing to entertain. Going all Quixote on it strikes me as wildly counterproductive to the greater cause of lessarchy. Standing for that principle if anything makes matters worse.
I didn’t realize this particular thing had been raging for more than a year now — here’s a column I wrote on it last March that expresses some of the same “why religion” argument as yours.
tk: ““rc: I’d say the battle for the liberty to have a segregationist business has been lost.””
“Then you’re not watching the news. That battle is being waged right now in the courts and in the state legislatures.”
Absolutely correct! Those various laws about allowing people to discriminate for reasons of religion. 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.
“Libertarians aren’t the ones who got the battle going again, but it IS going again, and we ARE being hit with questions about it, and we should offer the right answers instead of some variant of the wrong answer (the wrong answer being “other people are your property” and vice versa).”
Hear, hear! Now is not the time to abandon the libertarian positions, lest we give them up entirely.
RC: “I’d say the battle for the liberty to have a segregationist business has been lost. Some may find that to tragic. I don’t.”
If anything, I’d say that the issue should have been disputed right after the passage of the 1965 Civil Rights act. Restrictions on government, by government, that’s generally okay. Restrictions on individuals by government (which I think was Title VII) is NOT okay with me, as a libertarian. Even so, Title VII basically dealt with employment. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm As far as I know, it remains quite legal for even a business to discriminate on a virtually infinite variety of bases: Against bald people; against fat people; against people who come into a business wearing (or failing to wear) the color green, etc.\
Clearly, Title VII was written simply to pander to various racial groups, in order to buy their votes.
“If the State is substantially rolled back, maybe the issue should be re-visited. It’d be way down on my priority list, if at all.”
In other words, if Libertarianism has already succeeded, you won’t object.
Thanks for the “help”, buddy. You won’t gather (or pay for) the food, you won’t help cook it, but once it’s cooked, you’ll damned sure offer to help eat it. Can you say “selfish”?
“I’d say the battle for the liberty to have a segregationist business has been lost.”
Then you’re not watching the news. That battle is being waged right now in the courts and in the state legislatures.
Libertarians aren’t the ones who got the battle going again, but it IS going again, and we ARE being hit with questions about it, and we should offer the right answers instead of some variant of the wrong answer (the wrong answer being “other people are your property” and vice versa).
Jim, as I explained to TK, your position “lands in exactly the same place.” Double negatives often come across as double talk, if you’ve not noticed.
I’d say the battle for the liberty to have a segregationist business has been lost. Some may find that to tragic. I don’t.
If the State is substantially rolled back, maybe the issue should be re-visited. It’d be way down on my priority list, if at all.
rc:”Running for office? Mega-fail. If one’s position is white-only lunch counters is OK, ”
You are deliberately misrepresenting my position. I didn’t say they are “okay”, in the sense of being desirable. My position is that governments shouldn’t be ordering them to not exist. Libertarians understand the distinction quite well. Why not you, too?
“my strong counsel is don’t run for office. You are definitely going to make a fool of yourself, and hurt the prospects for lessarchy in the process.”
Assuming that the position is accurately described, as well as the reason for it, I see no problem that hasn’t already existed for many libertarian positions for 40+ years.
“Even on a theoretical plane, I believe that in this day and age, a “business” is open to the “public.” A “club” is not. I do believe that haters can have clubs that cater only to those they don’t hate.”
Usually, indeed, a business is open to the public. But not because government should require that to be true.
tk, I respect that there’s a “big difference” for you.
For most people in 2016, it lands in exactly the same place…that segregation is permissible under the NAP.
This is a political non-starter if ever there was one. You may not care, or you may hope that by holding high this NAP banner, over time people will see the light and agree with you that there’s a “big” difference in how this issue is framed.
I’m not holding my breath.
“but avoid spelling out explicitly that the NAP read literally leads to the position that whites-only lunch counters would be aOK in a ‘L’ society.”
That’s because I don’t like to engage in misspelling.
The NAP doesn’t lead, “literally” or otherwise, to the position that whites-only lunch counters would ba aOK in a ‘L’ society.”
The NAP leads to the position that it would be impermissible to use force to integrate a whites-only lunch counter in a “L” society.
There’s a difference. A big difference.
tk: “milquetoast to a degree that guarantees not only defeat but dismissal.”
me: I dunno, with so many extremist positions that affects most people, having a few “milquetoast” positions seems like maybe a good idea.
I notice you agree but avoid spelling out explicitly that the NAP read literally leads to the position that whites-only lunch counters would be aOK in a “L” society. Is this a case of your being “milquetoast”?
Of course, another position could be:
I support marriage equality. If I were a baker, I’d certainly be happy to bake a cake for a gay wedding. However, forcing a baker to do so goes too far, in my view.
Therein lies the problem with FoA and the NAP. It leads to wildly unpopular positions and “dismissal.” And there’s a long list of extremist interpretations of the NAP that are equally or even more dismissal material.
I disagree. It is related to issue. His argument is that there should be no discrimination by businesses based on religion and a few other reasons (can’t recall specifically at this moment without watching the debate again). Politics wasn’t one of the reasons.
He should have questioned the reference to a nazi and taken it back to his original argument. He needs serious debate training if he ends up our nominee and somehow meets the requirements to be in the debates.
Stewart,
True. But I’d say that’s more of a typical Johnson malapropism matter than one of issue/policy content. He just has a habit of suddenly starting to speak in tongues. A variety of Tourette’s, perhaps?
This has been a somewhat lengthy and complex discussion, so pardon me if I have overlooked comments related to what I am about to bring up:
When did being a nazi become a religious issue? Johnson kept saying that he opposes permitting a business to discriminate based on religion. How does this relate to a nazi asking for a cake? How is this religious? Regardless of whether you agree with him on his basic premise, how can anyone — Johnson included — argue that the nazi movement was/is anything other than a political movement?
Yes, they hated and persecuted those of the hebrew faith and of their genetic background, but it was for political reasons, based on some nutty theory that they secretly controlled the economy — which wasn’t in very good shape in Germany in those days. They were used as a scapegoat to incite the population and rally them around a political movement. Yes, there was some religious aspect to the persecution, which of course was present in the background (and sanctioned by the Catholic Church which has since “appologized”) , but it was publicly and officially political.
It was horrible. It was a crime of a scale so massive that the real number of victims will never be known. But being a nazi is not a religion. Johnson kept using religion as his justification.
Am I the only one bothered by this? Whether you agree or disagree with him, his argument just does not make sense. There were Catholic nazis, Protestant nazis, athiest and even Jewish nazis. It is not a religion!
“Discretion is often the better part of valor, especially in politics.”
Only if “valor” is defined as “milquetoast to a degree that guarantees not only defeat but dismissal.”
Every SUCCESSFUL politician who’s asked about this issue will have some kind of strong answer on it.
Presumably the libertarian politician’s strong answer will center around freedom, particularly of association.
Yes, it’s best to personally disavow bigotry in one’s answer, for the same reason that it’s best to not pick one’s nose or masturbate on stage.
But the question still has to be answered and there are right answers and wrong answers, both of which will command more support and respect than “I’m trying to not actually answer and hoping you won’t notice.”
more…
Marriage equality is IMO a step in the direction of lessarchy. I can see why the turbulent wake would trigger very minor controversies like cake baking. The overall trend, I submit, is positive, even if this technicality could be viewed as a negative.
Politics involve tradeoffs.
I’d suggest saying something like:
Ending segregation was a painful process, one that I would not like to see repeated. I don’t have a position on cake baking enforcement, but whatever is done, I believe we need to keep things peaceful and civil.
Discretion is often the better part of valor, especially in politics.
So your suggestion would be “do my damnedest to avoid answering the question asked and hope nobody notices.”
The actual question in play here is “should the government compel the baker to bake the cake, or punish the baker for refusing to bake the cake?”
You propose to advance the cause of lessarchy by declining to disavow morearchy.
TK, fair question. I’d say it’s less toxic, but toxic. It’s on a theoretical plane. I would not suggest taking that position in a campaign.
Some issues are distractions, but some are sideshows of the moment. Baking cakes for gay weddings might fall into that category.
My suggestion would be to say something like: Let me be clear, if I were a baker, I would bake the cake. I’m for marriage equality, but even if I weren’t, I’d bake the cake. I do understand that some people’s personal morality clashes with our evolving sense of civil rights, and sometimes there are overreactions, too. I look forward to the day when prejudice is a thing of the past. For now, I would say that businesses that are open to the public should cater to all the public, within reason.
And then move on. Getting into the weeds and theoretical conversations do not IMO serve the cause of lessarchy.
Holding high the banner of voluntary segregation definitely hurts the cause of lessarchy.
“Even on a theoretical plane, I believe that in this day and age, a ‘business’ is open to the ‘public.’ A ‘club’ is not. I do believe that haters can have clubs that cater only to those they don’t hate.”
What makes you think that position is any less, as you put it, “toxic?”
jim: Remember, if your principle is that the government gets to force anyone to do business the way the government decides, that makes government-forced segregated lunch counters of the 1960’s and earlier okay.”
Libertarians simply believe that it shouldn’t be up to the government to decide.
me: This might work in a college dorm room.
Running for office? Mega-fail. If one’s position is white-only lunch counters is OK, my strong counsel is don’t run for office. You are definitely going to make a fool of yourself, and hurt the prospects for lessarchy in the process.
Even on a theoretical plane, I believe that in this day and age, a “business” is open to the “public.” A “club” is not. I do believe that haters can have clubs that cater only to those they don’t hate.
I am not saying that answers to various political questions are ENTIRELY unrelated in the Pew survey. But evidently the choice of the questions made by Pew are designed to not show libertarians as a group. We know that such a group should exist, yet Pew pretends they don’t. I call that fraud.
As for your foolish statement, “The Nolan chart questions are rigged to drive people into the Libertarian region…”, I can only laugh. Imagine people who simply believe that government should have very little say in society: Presumably, they will score (100/100), as I do. How is it that they are “driven” to answer one specific way? They answer in the way which minimizes government involvement. How can you claim that this is somehow an artificial result??
I think it would be far more relevant to say that the questions COULD BE rigged, if you chose to do that. Go ahead, tell us the 10 questions you would ask if you wanted to make people make ‘non-libertarian’ answers. Warning: It would be better if you didn’t make the thing to be obvioiusly biased.
Jim: Your ideas about cluster analysis are simply mistaken. If all variables were randomly assorted, so that someone who wanted to ban all abortions was equally likely to support or oppose gay marriage, etc., the distribution would be flat, and no clusters would be found. However, as the Pew study shows, when we take people and look at their opinions on a wide range of issues, people who choose A on questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are very likely to have particular answers on choices 6-27. The computer search has no advance opinions as to where are the clusters are, or how many there are. It makes an unbiased search. Indeed, the number of clusters has fallen with time over he past few decades.
The Nolan chart questions are rigged to drive people into the Libertarian region, as a recruiting tool, and do not demonstrate what you are proposing.
Robert Capozzi: “Jim, your position evades. If DWP ever got on MTP, Chuck Todd would follow up with obvious, “So you are telling us that it’s OK to have whites-only lunch counters if the owner chooses to do business that way?”
I would throw the question back at them: “At some point in the past, government REQUIRED businesses to offer segregated services. ‘Would you prohibit businesses from offering integrated lunch counters if the owner chooses to do business that way?” Remember, if your principle is that the government gets to force anyone to do business the way the government decides, that makes government-forced segregated lunch counters of the 1960’s and earlier okay.”
Libertarians simply believe that it shouldn’t be up to the government to decide.
“Assuming Pew did what they said they did, which in my opinion is the sane assumption, they do not have ways to bias the choices. Cluster analysis is purely mathematical, with no outside content. In particular the method finds the clusters. *Then* you figure out what the clusters are.”
While that is plausible, it is by no means necessarily what Pew actually did.
What Pew did is closely related to Congressional Redistricting. Imagine a closed curve, like a state (or an island), and a “population” is randomly scattered on it. There are a large (“infinite”) number of ways that such an “island” can be subdivided into sub-sections.
In the real world, the population might not be randomly scattered, but still someone can still deviously use strategems to divide it. If there appear to be seven towns, placed on an otherwise unoccupied landscape, separating them into seven groups is probably reasonable. Did the data support this?
When, about 24 years ago, I worked at the Libertarian booth at a local county fair, we gave the WSPQ, graphing the results for all to see. The results centered on about 70/70. IOW, if they (Pew) was actually trying to fairly subdivide those results, there would be at least one “libertarian” region. UNLESS the person doing the subdividing wanted to misrepresent the results. Probably that’s exactly what’s happening here.
Sorry guys, I put the Russian characters down, BUT clearly they don’t translate!
Probably the freak’n C I A ! :>)
From the Libertarian People’s Republic of Universal Uniformity:
“ALL FORMS OF PERSONAL PREFERENCES THAT ARE NOT
PROHIBITED BY LAW ARE MANDITORY FOR ALL PARTY MEMBERS!!!”
FORWARD MARCH; ???? – ??? – ??? – ?????? – ???? – ??? – ??? – ?????? – ???? – ??? – ??? – ??????
Assuming Pew did what they said they did, which in my opinion is the sane assumption, they do not have ways to bias the choices. Cluster analysis is purely mathematical, with no outside content. In particular the method finds the clusters. *Then* you figure out what the clusters are.
Jim, your position evades. If DWP ever got on MTP, Chuck Todd would follow up with obvious, “So you are telling us that it’s OK to have whites-only lunch counters if the owner chooses to do business that way?”
This would be far more damaging than RP1’s claim on MTP that Lincoln should have allowed the CSA to secede.
It might get the hater vote, but otherwise this sort of stuff is like political pancreatic cancer, if you are paying attention.
And, yes, it’s all quite NAP compliant, which should get NAPsters to rethink the NAP!
George Phillies:
“Pew has done this repeatedly. In past cycles, their method did find a Libertarian block. This time it didn’t. ”
Most likely Pew CHOSE to not find a “libertarian block”. A nation of 310 million people doesn’t change so readily so as to erase a division over a year or two. It’s a biased political choice on the part of Pew.
“One reasonable explanation is that the membership of the national party actually corresponds to reality. :
Are you trying to make people laugh at you?
“Libertarianism is going down hill in this country as a block. ”
Far more likely is that other political groupings are changing so as to incorporate libertarian principles.
“Like a sandy island in a river delta, the libertarian cluster rises and fades with time, but may rise again.”
Rivers move slowly by eroding soil on one side, and depositing it on the other. Few people notice the movement.
“An interesting comparison on the Pew clusters is the apparent long-time (lack of) stability of the woods duck population.”
In this case, it is obvious that the biased choice of those doing the study are far more likely to be choosing the outcome they desire.
“I know all that. It’s immaterial.”
I disagree that “It’s immaterial”.
“If your guy DWP gets the nomination and he’s asked, “Does a lunch counter owner have the right under the FoA to make his business open for whites only?” you would want him to say Yes, right? That’s the only NAP-consistent position, isn’t it?”
I would say, instead: “It’s the libertarian position that Government should not be able to require a lunch counter owner to make his business open for whites only, nor require same lunch counter owner to make his business open for everybody, or any other combination.
Thing is, I can actually see a justification for forcing businesses to “bake the cake,” and that is with large corporations like Wal Mart which are effectively part of the state. We dont allow the state to selectively hand out marriage licenses as long as it is in the business of doing so, so why should large, subsidized corporations be any different? Of course i recognize this analogy is probably tailored to actual small businesses, but the area gets murky with already the large state involvement in the market.
This line of thought is entirely wrongheaded, at least if you are looking at things from a libertarian perspective. Yes, libertarians should certainly oppose, in very strong terms, the practice of government giving subsidies (direct or indirect) to businesses. However, it does not in any way follow that we should use the existence of those subsidies as an excuse to act as if those businesses are owned by the state. That would be advocating communism, not libertarianism.
Incidentally, since you brought up gay marriage, this is one of the reasons I have been such an opponent of all the “marriage equality” rhetoric. Just as libertarians should emphasize our opposition to corporate welfare, rather than using the existence of it to support other government interference in the market, so too should we emphasize our opposition to government licensing and regulating marriage, rather than using it to argue for even more government involvement in marriage.
In short, we need to stop saying, “Well, government really shouldn’t do X, but as long as they do, they should also do Y.” That sort of “two wrongs make a right” mentality plays directly into the hands of the big government authoritarians.
tk, I appreciate your candor.
I guess it really depends how one means to use the word “worthwhile.” I am SURE that I would not vote for someone who supports the “right” to segregated lunch counters. “Worthwhile” to me means something that leads to positive outcomes, and my guess is that such a position is not only toxic, it’s radioactive.
Jim,
Pew has done this repeatedly. In past cycles, their method did find a Libertarian block. This time it didn’t. One reasonable explanation is that the membership of the national party actually corresponds to reality. Libertarianism is going down hill in this country as a block. Like a sandy island in a river delta, the libertarian cluster rises and fades with time, but may rise again.
An interesting comparison on the Pew clusters is the apparent long-time (lack of) stability of the woods duck population.
George
It’s not just that it’s the NAP consistent position. It’s the only position consistent with any worthwhile notion of freedom, morality or humanity. Other people aren’t your property, no matter how badly you might want them to be. That was supposedly something we settled 150 years ago at significant cost in blood and treasure.
I know all that. It’s immaterial.
If your guy DWP gets the nomination and he’s asked, “Does a lunch counter owner have the right under the FoA to make his business open for whites only?” you would want him to say Yes, right? That’s the only NAP-consistent position, isn’t it?
“Whites only” lunch counters were mandated by law, not created by markets. In fact, in Florida it took a two-decade campaign of murder and corruption to impose Jim Crow on a state whose people were mostly ready to get over that idiocy. Granted, it did become more popular later. That’s what half a century of regime propaganda reinforcement accomplishes.
TK, I hear you. In that sense, we’re all slaves in some form. If you choose to view it that way, lessarchist politics would be about releasing as many shackles as possible.
I frankly don’t see the point of “standing up” for a return to “whites only” lunch counters as a matter of “principle.” But, as with everything, YMMV.
I wouldn’t characterize that particular position as being “NAP-obsessed” so much as subscribing to the radical notion that people aren’t other people’s property. I consider that notion worth standing up for even if would-be slavers consider it “toxic.”
tk: The public decides that, perhaps under the influence of opinion makers with far more influence than us.
me: Agreed. And then the question of positioning comes up. If a single-digit party wants to be of influence, it frames issues and suggests another path as part of an overall message.
If LP candidates start to take the position sympathetic to bakers who don’t want to bake gay wedding cakes, they might even double down and say that motel and restaurant owners that hate the shvoogies have the right to deny them in their establishment as a matter of FoA.
Do that, and forget about attracting virtually all liberal-leaners and at this point most conservative leaners. That level of toxicity might be a-OK with Around and perhaps you and other NAP-obsessed Ls, but it’s definitely alienating and incendiary at this stage of the play. It’s not “wrong,” though, but it is exceedingly poor politics.
“The Pew cluster analysis scheme works for a reason, and actually finds clusters.”
Well, I have now read something about that, http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/appendix-2-about-the-political-typology/
Why do none of the seven groups defined seem to bear any resemblance to libertarians? Could it be that Pew is pretending that libertarians don’t exist?
“Democrats and Republicans, whose position on issues is virtually arbitrary and capricious, ”
Completely wrong.
The Pew cluster analysis scheme works for a reason, and actually finds clusters.
A single digit percentage party doesn’t get to decide which issues are ripe and which issues aren’t. The public decides that, perhaps under the influence of opinion makers with far more influence than us. All we get to decide is what we SAY about the issues that others have decided are ripe.
tk: The only choice we have is whether to be right on it or wrong on it.
me: ADR, I don’t see it that way at all. Political positioning and judgment on any issue involve a range of considerations, as I see it. FoA, public accommodations, the definition of a “business,” ripeness of an issue, and agenda-setting suggest a more nuanced approach to politics IF there’s an interest in advancing an agenda in the short term. If politics is a matter of converting cadre to a black-and-white worldview, that implies a different approach, agreed.
““issue is toxic””
“Like, oh, 90% of our platform? When the media asks questions, we can’t be dodging everything except the four or five most popular issues. The Libertarian political kitchen is very hot and we have to state our principled views or we aren’t any better than the politicians in the other parties who test the wind before
opening their mouths.”
Exactly correct! Unlike the Democrats and Republicans, whose position on issues is virtually arbitrary and capricious, Libertarians used to call themselves “The Party of Principle”: We believe in a position because it is RIGHT, not merely because we happened to sway with the wind that particular week.
If we are challenged for opposition to the Title 7 of the 1964 Civil rights act (as I recall, the part purporting to control private organizations like companies), we should boldly point out that it would be entirely inconstent with our philosophy to allow government to force people (or companies) to deal with each other.
The news media, in 2016, is (or should be) dramatically more savvy about libertarians than they were decades ago. We should point out, to them, that they (for example) weren’t criticizing the Democrat Party Platform, which at least until the early 2000’s was anti-illegal immigration: Yet, magically, they are ‘for’ it today! What caused the change? Political expediency, obviously.
“issue is toxic”
Like, oh, 90% of our platform? When the media asks questions, we can’t be dodging everything except the four or five most popular issues. The Libertarian political kitchen is very hot and we have to state our principled views or we aren’t any better than the politicians in the other parties who test the wind before
opening their mouths.
Well, EVERY business and EVERY individual receives SOME kind of government bennies (I receive mail delivered by the US Postal Service; I use roads built and maintained by various governments; etc.).
Figuring out which businesses and individuals are NET BENEFICIARIES as opposed to NET SUBSIDIZERS sounds like a difficult task. There are certainly some obvious examples of either, but most aren’t so obvious.
I’d say that if someone wants to impose non-discrimination requirements on a putatively private business, the burden of proof should be on those so imposing to demonstrate that the business is in fact substantially a creature of the state.
Lucas Schone: “Thing is, I can actually see a justification for forcing businesses to “bake the cake,” and that is with large corporations like Wal Mart which are effectively part of the state. We dont allow the state to selectively hand out marriage licenses as long as it is in the business of doing so, so why should large, subsidized corporations be any different? Of course i recognize this analogy is probably tailored to actual small businesses, but the area gets murky with already the large state involvement in the market.
Sorry, but I cannot agree that “…large corporations like Wal Mart which are effectively part of the state”. You’re stretching, mightily. Government may indeed purchase from Wal Mart, but that doesn’t make Wal Mart “part of the state”. And if some government entity owns stock in Wal Mart, I’d say that’s wrong.
There’s another important, point, that the article writer doesn’t get into. Anyone who followed Rand Paul’s Senate campaign in 2010 should remember what happened when he criticized that very part of the Civil Rights Act. Until he publicly recanted, the resulting media storm drowned out everything else he had to say.
Because Paul was labelled a “libertarian”, I’m sure there are many people in the media waiting to ask the Libertarian candidate the same thing. Un-like Mr. Petersen, they won’t be spinning it into a question about forcing Jews to make cakes for Nazis – they’ll be spinning it into a question of racists making people of color eat and sleep on the streets. And the same thing will happen to our campaign, and the positive message we can deliver (read Stossel’s article on my blog today, to see what that is) will be buried, the same as it was for Paul. For the entire campaign, because we can’t expect a candidate like Petersen (or Perry) to do anything but double down.
While I agree with the libertarian position on non-discrimination laws – they’re overreach – I think the issue is toxic. Don’t go there, people.
“Why would Ls ever want this sideshow to be a signature matter?”
Ls didn’t make it a signature matter. It’s been a matter of significant public debate for a year or so and has resulted in litigation and legislation. Having a position on it isn’t something we get to choose or not choose, nor is it an issue we get to avoid. The only choice we have is whether to be right on it or wrong on it.
aj: I would not apply this to small businesses that are not “on the government tit” (so to speak).
me: Except that some small businesses get SBA loans or are breast feeding in other manners.
Tucker. But I wonder if some would say, No cake for Nazis, Cake for gays?
Why would Ls ever want this sideshow to be a signature matter?
George, well we all know now who wrote it, Alan Hayman. He doesn’t use his name in the blog title but it isn’t a secret, but it seems that issue is over.
The article is a critique of my position and others like me. I thought it was a good critique, so I posted it. I like friendly criticism, and Alan is a thoughtful guy. Later today I will be posting something he is writing that I agree with. His blog has been getting a fair bit of attention in libertarian circles.
Also it will be amusing how certain FB trolls will assume since I posted it that I must agree with it and it is SOME JOHNSON CONSPIRACY. Because to some (no one here in this thread) it is inconceivable that someone could post something that they disagree with because they think it is a good representation of the opposing side.
“Lucas Schone
April 14, 2016 at 10:51
Thing is, I can actually see a justification for forcing businesses to ‘bake the cake,’ and that is with large corporations like Wal Mart which are effectively part of the state. We dont allow the state to selectively hand out marriage licenses as long as it is in the business of doing so, so why should large, subsidized corporations be any different? Of course i recognize this analogy is probably tailored to actual small businesses, but the area gets murky with already the large state involvement in the market.”
I have made this same point here myself. Most of (or maybe even all of) the big corporations in this country are subsidized by the state in some way, and in a lot of cases, they are even partially owned by the state (see http://www.CAFR1.com for more details), so given this fact, I could see forcing big corporate stores like Walmart, Target, Kroger, Safeway, etc…, to serve gays and the rest of the public.
I would not apply this to small businesses that are not “on the government tit” (so to speak).
OK, so we’ve seen Random Spoon’s take on his blog. Now here’s Jeffrey Tucker’s take …in Newsweeek. I wonder which one will get more notice?
gp: This ‘the free market will supply another baker’ especially in a small town, shows an ignorance of business management, namely there are costs of setting up a bakery, a real person has to take up the risk of becoming a second baker, not to mention that the local market may not support two bakers.
me: Good point. However, there are a lot of things that are not readily available in small towns. There are probably places where there’s only one motel or one restaurant in some towns. If these businesses — which today means “open to the public” — are run by haters, the NAPster position points us way, way backwards. Forget attracting social liberals to the cause of freedom if this narrow FoA NAPster view prevails in the LM.
Thing is, I can actually see a justification for forcing businesses to “bake the cake,” and that is with large corporations like Wal Mart which are effectively part of the state. We dont allow the state to selectively hand out marriage licenses as long as it is in the business of doing so, so why should large, subsidized corporations be any different? Of course i recognize this analogy is probably tailored to actual small businesses, but the area gets murky with already the large state involvement in the market.
Food for thought.
The article matches the sentiment that I’ve seen from people I know who are going to be delegates from my state as well as from many others. Some of them are very serious members of the anarchist wing of the party. They view Johnson as not perfect, but far better than many other options and more electable to the public. They are waking up to the idea that we have to start nudging our way back to liberty and can’t just sit around shouting purist ideas at a media that won’t cover the candidate and a public that doesn’t understand everything.
My issues with the Johnson campaign are more with the management of 2012, the financial issues, and the difficulties they are having resolving them. According to that I side with site, I’m only 80% in agreement with Johnson, and 95% and above with several other candidates — neither of whom have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting on a debate stage, an being interviewed on Fox, MSNBC, CNN or possibly even their local tv station.
So where do we go? I believe that he will get the nomination, so our concerns should be with how the campaign would be run and how to convince the candidate to have a management team that actually knows how to budget, raise lots of money and deploy resources in a national campaign. No, that isn’t easy. But Libertarians have done it before — all except the part about raising lots of money!
The only thing that a successful push by radical caucus could do at this point is drag us back into the quagmire of purism for the sake of purism as they dance around congratulating themselves for “saving” us.
Oh, by the way, responding to people by first name has the difficulty that several people may have the same first name.
Caryn,
The post, who it was from, is anonymous. I’m happy to respect that. The Federalist papers, after all, were anonymous. It’s an illustrious approach. I am perfectly happy to respect the author’s desire for anonymity. I am certainly not obliged to do an internet search until I identify the poster.
Did the debaters on the spur of the moment have to come up with a situation that exactly matters the letter of the law? The baker and the fascist captures perfectly the bathos of the situation. It was a brilliant political phrasing. One might propose that with a few weeks notice something that exactly matches the terms of Federal law and is elsewise is emotionally moving works.
This ‘the free market will supply another baker’ especially in a small town, shows an ignorance of business management, namely there are costs of setting up a bakery, a real person has to take up the risk of becoming a second baker, not to mention that the local market may not support two bakers.
Constitutional Craig,
“I thought that since Johnson did so well in 2012, that he was pretty much going to be the nominee in 2016. What are the odds currently and is the nominating convention in August?”
To quote Han Solo, “Never tell me the odds!” Which will be easy because the odds are unknown.
There are no polls of likely delegates, and I wouldn’t trust any such published poll, anyway.
I think Gary will lock up the nomination on the first ballot, maybe the second. BUT, you never know. Who could have predicted the LNC Chairman’s race in 2012, when “NOTA” won, and we had to go back to nominations from scratch?
So, I’l once again cite Han Solo, with his advice to Luke, “Don’t get cocky”
Caryn,
No need to apologize for posting this.
Then again, that’s easy for me to say… I agree with the piece.
==(WTF is a Random Spoon? Who wrote this?===
Alan Hayman wrote it. A friend of mine and former fellow Board member.
== Who posted this?)==
As stated in the byline at the bottom of the screen, I posted it.
As for the rest, be careful about saying someone “lied.” As someone who knows Alan well, that shot hit well afield of its target. Alan supports FoA. His point was why that isn’t going to keep him from voting for Gary. This is how many many people feel. Reacting hostilely does not bring clarity.
I was ridiculously tired when I posted this last night. Article updated with link to original, which is here:
http://therandomspoon.blogspot.com/2016/04/gary-johnson-is-wrong-on-discrimination.html
Also, the author is Allan Hayman… My brain be dumb yesterday.
I have not paid close attention to the Libertarian Party race for President. I thought that since Johnson did so well in 2012, that he was pretty much going to be the nominee in 2016. What are the odds currently and is the nominating convention in August?
“…Johnson’s position on anti-discrimination laws, I’ll sum it up: he wouldn’t change them. ”
If only GJ would frame issues this way, he’d have fewer problems with our NAP-obsessed brothers and sisters. Instead, he has a strong tendency to meander. It shows a lack of preparation and insufficient staff work.
How’s this: I look forward to the day when we have a consensus that anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary. While we can quibble about these laws, I believe the country has much more pressing matters, and so changing or reforming the current set of anti-discrimination laws would not be an agenda item in a Johnson Administration. Getting the out-of-control budget under control; getting out of the Vietnam-like quagmire in the Middle East; and rooting-out R and D cronyism in Washington is an overflowing plate.
If the article’s goal is simply furious hand waving, I give it an A+.
If the goal is actual logical argumentation, I give it a D- (at best).
If the philosophy is sacrificed then what is the point of the LP?
(WTF is a Random Spoon? Who wrote this? Who posted this?)
Regardless, the author is wrong and/or lying about the Civil Rights Act. That act prohibits discrimination in public accommodations. It doesn’t say anything about personal services or artisans.
It also doesn’t say anything about same-sex couples. It only prohibits discrimination (at public accommodations) based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
So, that is two — not one, but two — aspects in which the law is being lied about here. It’s one thing to support the law as written, but lying about what the law says in order to undermine freedom of association is unacceptable. You expect this kind of lying from leftist judges, not from LP members.
This article does not convince me. Gary Johnson is clearly wrong in saying he would support anti-discrimination laws. Nevertheless, that does not mean that I would not vote for him if selected as the Libertarian presidential candidate. Who else is likely to be better than him?
George, he isn’t trying to be anonymous. It is rather easy to discover the identity… it is just his personal blog and he isn’t trying to do anything but put down his thoughts.
Though many people said this, he at least partially was referring to me. I said this:
“He failed basic Libertarianism. Freedom of association is Liberty 101.”
Alan Scott, former LPCO Board member and friend is the author. He and I sharply disagree on this but I thought this was a good piece on that perspective.
I meant to write “Who is the author?” Sorry about that.
Well written and appropriate. You is the author?
Anonymous tracts insulting people have a glorious record in American politics.
However, persuading the people being insulted to change their positions is not one of their strong points.
“The strange thing is that Gary Johnson’s critics seem to acknowledge that he would probably be the most effective President of all the Libertarians running,” This claim appears to be complete blatherskite, namely most people have other topics on their minds, not to mention that many libertarians would view “how well he would actually do if elected President” to be stark raving bonkers as a criterion.
You will notice I am not trying to persuade the anonymous author of this tract to change his mind.
InB4, someone says “OMG how could you post this!” I think it is a good article from a point of view different from my own and by a former LPCO Board member and friend. I am loosely referred to in the critique.