Death of a Libertarian

Posted by Maphesdus 5 years, 8 months ago to Politics
137 comments | Share | Flag

I thought this was a really good article, and it effectively sums up the biggest issue I have with Ayn Rand's philosophy.

READ ARTICLE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tann...
SOURCE URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/death-of-a-libertarian_b_4259997.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Choose2Think 5 years, 8 months ago
    The notion that the basic tenet of libertarianism is lower taxes is absurd. The basic tenet is that each individual owns themselves AND the fruits of their labor. Forget the cliche of small government. For a libertarian, the function of government is to protect your life and property rights, period. It is not the function of government to guarantee a level playing field. Our founding fathers said that if men were angels, we wouldn't need the constitution. As a woman, I would never choose to stay in a firm that discriminated against me. If I am the most capable person in a position to make money for the company and they don't want me, why would I want to stay with a company that doesn't want to succeed? I'm 71 years old and I have experienced the glass ceiling. I have much more experience though experiencing unfettered forward accomplishments because my business talents were undeniable. I worked hard to get there.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 5 years, 8 months ago
    For all of your hatred of discrimination you're forcing people who hate each other to interact and it results in violence. Libertarian ideas still protect individual rights to be your self. Stop making people get along at the point of a gun.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
      What are you talking about? Anti-discrimination legislation doesn't force anyone to interact with anyone else. It simply prohibits persecution and prejudice within the public sphere.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by XenokRoy 5 years, 8 months ago
        I have hired a lot of people over the years. If I interview a white Caucasian male I can choose to not hire him without any additional effort. If I interview a female, or minority race then I have a whole bunch of documentation to write up if I choose not to hire them.

        The fact is it motivates a manager to hire the one they do not have to create a book about if they do not hire them. It creates huge amounts of waste and it interferes with the best candidate for the job getting the job.

        However if I really want to discriminate against some minority group I can always find something about the person that has nothing to do with race that makes them a lessor fit. Document it well and be on my way.

        That law does not prevent, or even slow a person who is prejudice from exercising there prejudices. It just makes them have to probe enough into a person to disqualify them from the job for some other reason and then document it.

        Under Anti-discrimination law the racist need only take some care to hide the true reason under a false one. Without anti-discrimination law hiring the best qualified person who fits the job and company would be the only driving force for any good manager or business operator. Anything else would result in a less than optimal operation and who wants that?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
          Non-discrimination laws in regard to hiring employees is a different topic than non-discrimination laws in regard to serving customers.

          While a bigot could potentially find a probable reason for not hiring a particular person because of prejudice, finding a probable cause for not serving a customer is next to impossible.

          Also, your argument about how having to do more paperwork if you chose not to hire a minority or a woman doesn't seem to make sense. How does doing more paperwork if you DON'T hire someone make you LESS likely to hire that person? It seems more logical that you would want to hire them to avoid the paperwork.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by RonJ 5 years, 8 months ago
            Why would I not serve a customer? I have every incentive to serve customers, and if I don't I can expect to lose customers to my competition. Either I change my attitude or I change careers, because I won't be long for the business world. The discrimination in the South was breaking down in the late 1800's until the racists used the force of government to pass and enforce Jim Crow laws. The streetcar companies fought against the 'back of the bus' rules for blacks because it was bad for business. Blacks eating in restaurants was curtailed by making it illegal. The Woolworth's lunch counter protest unfairly targeted Woolworths when it was really the state that required the separate accomodations.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 8 months ago
        Isn't that precisely what anti-discrimination legislation tries to do? Maybe I don't understand how it works, but I imagine it making someone who doesn't like some feature about me (maybe Albanian heritage or short stature) consider me for a job.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
          In regards to hiring employees, non-discrimination laws do not require business owners to give any special treatment or advantage to minorities or women. They simply require the business owners to give equal and fair consideration to them, and not immediately dismiss the applicant on the basis of a certain protected status.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 8 months ago
            I get that it is supposed to make you go out of your comfort zone of affluent friends. It's a good practice to expand your contacts. I don't know if AA has a role in that in the modern world, esp on the basis of dark skin when the POTUS has darkish skin. He is outside my circle of contacts b/c I'm not nearly that powerful yet!

            I wish they could trash all non-discrimination laws. Then we could stop debating which groups merit inclusion.

            **I really wish the gov't not taking action was not seen as tantamount to gov't endorsing it.** Drugs, gambling, selling sex, saying you don't hire certain races could all be decriminalized with no one construing that to mean those things are okay. Even as it is now, many stupid things you can do in life are legal. I'd like to expand the right to do all kinds of stupid things.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
              Refusing to hire people of a certain race violates the rights of members of that race. Therefore, it should never be legal. The other things you mentioned may have a legitimate argument going for them, but discrimination does not. There is no justifiable argument for legalizing discrimination. None.

              Also, eliminating non-discrimination laws would not eliminate debates about which groups should and should not be included in things, and I honestly don't see why you would think it would.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 8 months ago
                I don't see at all how it violates anyone's rights. It's not like the person refusing to hire certainly people is the only way to do productive activity. I guess I can see it if your line of work is something specific to making cars and is not something outsourced to subcontractors. There's only a handful of ways to do that type of work. So a few manufacturers have a lot of control over whether you work. This hypothetical person is in at tight spot even w/o discrimination b/c he has such a narrow customer base. That's always dangerous.

                Regarding ending debates, I mean it would end political debate. For example, it would end the debate about whether sexual orientation should be protected the same way as age, race, marital status, and sex are; none would be protected.

                I realize this would legalize one more form of stupid behavior in the marketplace, but a) I don't see that as a big deal and b) I'm not convinced you really can outlaw stupid behavior like this. There's a whole world of people out there wanting to design, test, and assemble electronics. There's a whole world of OEMs and startups that need electronics. Both of them occasionally do stupid things. I don't see the law coming in and making us any smarter in our decisions.

                Also, I find business so difficult that I can't imagine pushing a political agenda. I guess it happens, but I can't imagine being so good that I could pick and choose clients and employees based on race or politics and still feel confident I'm the best choice for customers. Even if I were Flextronics' CEO instead of one guy with a few PT employees, my mind would be consumed with keeping layers of people around the world excited about being the best choice for OEMs, not about race and politics.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Genez 5 years, 8 months ago
        The problem is when it forces people to violate their beliefs. While you may disagree with someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage, that doesn't give you the right to force them to photograph it for instance. A couple in New Mexico has been sued/forced for refusing to photograph a gay wedding. they did not persecute or do anything to harm the gay couple, they just refused to take the job. The gay couple is then free to choose some other photographer. How does it make sense to force them to take the job? Just like they can't force someone gay to not feel that way any more, the gay side of it shouldn't be able to force them either. There are a number of bills out there to do this and they do not fit within the confines of a free society. Now if a company is publicly owned / traded, that's a different story. at that point the company has to treat everyone the same. But when a business is privately owned, that's the whole point, it is your business or my business and we can choose we want to or don't want to do business with.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
          No, business owners cannot choose which customers they are and aren't willing to serve, not even if their business is privately owned.

          Non-discrimination laws should apply equally to all business, including privately owned business and businesses owned by religious organizations. There should be no exceptions.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by dpesec 5 years, 8 months ago
            wait as a business person I should have the right to decide who I serve. For example I do home defense and firearms training. What if I believe the person is a risk to him/herself or the class I still have to accept them in the class. I'm not sure I agree.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dpesec 5 years, 8 months ago
              You know I've been thinking about this a while more. This can also be taken in another direction. Here in Ohio it's illegal for a person to smoke in their own business. I have a client for my management consulting business and she smokes. Everybody else in the company does too, except for me the lowly consultant. Yet each person is required by law to go outside 20 feet from the building to smoke. There is no entrance for the general public so it's only employees and me. This is just another move to toward Public Law 10-289.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Rozar 5 years, 8 months ago
            But what if they don't? What do you do when they refuse to do business with religious people? Fine them? And what if they don't pay they fine? Throw them in jail? And they don't want to go to jail so they resist. So you shoot them. Because he didn't want to do business with religious people. People don't want to get shot, so they follow the law.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
          Genez cited an egregious case: "... A couple in New Mexico has been sued/forced for refusing to photograph a gay wedding."

          Two wrongs do not make a right. The problem is the egregious application of a law, the difference between a speed limit and a speed trap. Again, as Objectivism is a personal philosophy and Libertarianism is a political agenda, the essential questions all come back to the individual. In other words, regarding speeding, given that the limits exist for physical reasons, and in any case are posted clearly for all to see, and come with known consequences for violations, what judgment does the rational person hold for the habitual speeder caught (again) in a speed trap?

          The photographers do have a political right to be idiots. But how do we judge their prejudice?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
            Except that there is nothing wrong with filing a lawsuit against someone who violates your rights.

            People have a right to be idiots, sure, but they do not have the right to discriminate.

            Personally, I would have filed a lawsuit and then gone to a different photography company anyway, but I can understand if this couple wanted to set an example.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
              Ok. remedy. Maph I hate you. Smile. say cheese!
              your remedy is punitive. the antithesis of capitalism
              I do not want a member of al Qaeda as my nanny. If I am a bigot, you do not want my produce. get it?!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
                Haha, right. Like I said, I personally would prefer to take my business elsewhere, anyway. I wouldn't want to help line the pockets of a bigot.

                And punitive action is not the antithesis of capitalism, just of laissez faire capitalism.

                History has clearly shown us that communism and socialism don't work, and that capitalism is the only viable economic system. But that doesn't mean laissez faire capitalism is the only viable form of capitalism. Of all the different forms of capitalism which exist, why should we immediately jump to the conclusion that only laissez faire is viable, or even that laissez faire is viable at all, especially when a true laissez faire system has never existed anywhere? I can readily agree with any economist who promotes capitalism, though I have many suspicious and reservations about laissez faire. I believe regulations are necessary to ensure health and safety, and also to promote equality and fairness.

                (By the way, hiring a nanny isn't the same as running a business, so laws against discrimination don't apply there. Remember the distinction between the private and public spheres.)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 8 months ago
                Watch... magic...

                ": a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" - merriam-webster definition of "Bigot".

                "
                bigotry
                  Use Bigotry in a sentence
                bigotry
                [big-uh-tree]
                noun, plural bigotries.
                1.
                stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
                2.
                the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot." - dictionary.com definition of "Bigotry".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
              Well, we differ there. I would not patronize the photographers because their values are inimical to mine. In this case, though, the legal remedies are wrongfully in place.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 8 months ago
            " But how do we judge their prejudice? "
            Not at all?

            Okay, children, listen up, here's a lesson for you that you WILL NOT LEARN:

            EVERYBODY is prejudiced. Everybody.

            Of course we are. It saves time in most situations.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
        I think what you really want is thought control.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
          No, I just want people's rights to be protected. ;)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
            Even if it infringes on the rights of others?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dpesec 5 years, 8 months ago
              ah the classic issue. Where does one person's right start and another's begin.
              I prefer to make a buck if possible. My feeling is that if I can look at myself in the morning when I shave. If I can say I've done good, I'm happy.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                My point was... Maph wants to force business owners to comply with recognizing certain statuses even at the detriment of the owner's business or personal freedom. He thinks business owners should not have a say in who they serve as customers. He likes force so long as it's not against himself. He also knows nothing about running a business. He's caught in a bubble of do-goodery and thinks we owe others something. One person's life choices do not trump another's belief system...but he thinks they should...out of "fairness". "Discriminate" is his favorite word.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
                  Telling business owners that they cannot discriminate does not violate their freedom because there is no such thing as the right to discriminate. There is only the right to be free from discrimination.

                  Whenever I hear someone say they have the right to discriminate, their arguments sound about as valid as that of a slave owner insisting that he has the right to own slaves.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                    Your argument sounds like you think you have the right to hold people captive...legally. (You HAVE to act like you want my business...cuz the law says so..if you don't I'll sue you..so ha!)
                    And there is to a right to discriminate (screw whatever law you're going to bring up)...it saves lives if you're smart enough to not ignore it. Ted Bundy's would-be victims come to mind...the ones that said, "Hmmm something's not right here, you're creeping me out with that icky smile." And got away. Good thing they weren't concerned with offending him or hurting his feelings... (like maybe his victims were afraid to do when they're discriminatory radar went off.) You need a new word..."discriminate" isn't working. And neither does "racist" so throw that one out too.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
                      You're confusing the public sphere with the private sphere. You're perfectly within your right to discriminate in the private sphere, but not in the public sphere.

                      To be clear, the private sphere is your personal life, such as your home, your friends, your family, and so forth, while the public sphere is any institution which is a business, a school, or part of the government. You can discriminate all you like in your own private life, but to discriminate in the public sphere is to violate other people's rights.

                      (By the way, your reference to Ted Bundy was a really, really bad example, and demonstrates that you don't actually understand what discrimination is or how it works.)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                        dis·crim·i·nate
                        disˈkriməˌnāt/
                        verb
                        verb: discriminate; 3rd person present: discriminates; past tense: discriminated; past participle: discriminated; gerund or present participle: discriminating

                        1.
                        recognize a distinction; differentiate.
                        "babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"
                        synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw a distinction, tell the difference, tell apart;
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                        I think you're "sphere" needs to be popped with a big sharp needle. I am me whether I'm at home or in public...I'm not going to change because some boob made a law positioned to intimidate. Individuals are individuals who have principles no matter WHERE they are and shouldn't be told they HAVE to put up others they find offensive. (This goes for me, this goes for you...) This conversation has gotten to the point of ridiculous. Private and public spheres... where do you learn this shit? (Runnin' to the store...I better put my public mask on now.. ugh)
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 8 months ago
                          " I am me whether I'm at home or in public."

                          THAT sums up, in my opinion, a large part of what's wrong with the U.S. today.

                          When you are at home, feel free to dance around in your underwear. When you are in public... dress and behave appropriately!

                          I'm tired of seeing these human cattle wallowing into Walmart in a hoodie, pajama bottoms and flip-flips in 30 degree weather.

                          I'm tired of people behaving as though they are either in their home, or we are all family, in public. Yes, I poop too; doesn't mean I want any knowledge of your evacuation habits.

                          I lust for a return to Victorian days, where you didn't even go out the front door without a hat and proper dress. Or even just back to the 50s-60s where mom wouldn't let you go out to school unless your jeans were whole and clean, your shirt was button-down and tucked in, and your hair was combed, even if that included mom-spit holding the cowlick down (if you were a boy; if you were a girl, it was a (clean! whole!) dress or blouse-and-skirt so that boys knew you were one of the people they're not allowed to roughhouse with).

                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                            Well...you're on a roll tonight.
                            Sigh... how did what I say get twisted into inappropriate attire for public... I was strictly talking about principles....I don't leave the house without them.
                            Everything else you just said...I agree with. Get dressed for God's sake! (Stop picking up, or dropping off, your kids at school in your striped flannel pajama pants and comb that rat's nest of a knotted mess on your head too.)
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dpesec 5 years, 8 months ago
                  Lets, you bet most people don't like to have force used against them. It's funny that some people use touchy feely to do business, others actually make money. Me, If I don't want to sell something or provide a service I don't. Plain pure and simple.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                    As it should be. Touchy feely be damned. (If someone is a force working against my freedoms...on any front...why the hell would I want to play nice for a possible buck? Get outta here.) :)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 8 months ago
                      Because money can be power. It's certainly more power than abject poverty.

                      I can be more effective fighting for what I believe in with a roof over my head and food in my belly than by taking a principled stand against Walmart/Target/Best Buy.YouNameTheBigEmployer.

                      Hank Rearden had the *luxury* of having already become a billionaire before fighting the powers that be. When Dagny had had enough, she had her family's cabin in the woods (which they used apparently to "rough it" pretending to live as poor people did, for a few weeks at a time). She didn't have to worry about where her next meal was going to come from.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 5 years, 8 months ago
        The only way to enforce anti-discrimination legislation is to USE FORCE
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
          The purpose of government is to protect people's rights. People have a right to not be discriminated against. Therefore, it is perfectly justifiable for government to enact laws to protect that right.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
            I also have a right to dislike whoever I want. Stop trying to take that a way. Do you want to be forced to interact with and have dealings with people you can't stand, Maph? Do you? Because that's what your asking for.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
              Sure, you have the right to dislike whoever you want, for whatever reason you want. However, you do not have the right to persecute or discriminate against people you don't like if your reason for disliking them is because of a protected status like race or gender.

              As for me, the only type of people I can't stand are jerks and assholes. Luckily, disruptive and abusive behavior are not legally protected statuses, so if I owned a business, I could kick out anyone who was causing mayhem or being otherwise disruptive. ;)

              The important point to remember here is the distinction between a person's BEHAVIOR and a person's IDENTITY. While a business owner is fully entitled to refuse service to anyone because of the former, they cannot refuse service to someone because of the latter.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                How would you react to a skin head walking in, as polite as can be, wearing a shirt that says "I hate gays!" It's just a shirt.... the person under it is smiling and touching your merchandise. He asks a couple of questions maybe....puts finger prints all over your newly shined counter top....walks around aimlessly humming a happy tune. Two hours later... Is his behavior and identity welcome in your business?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
                  First off, it should be noted that "skinhead" is not a legally protected status. Even so, as long as he was otherwise respectful and didn't harass or cause problems for any of the other customers or employees, I personally wouldn't kick him out.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by dpesec 5 years, 8 months ago
                    Map, why not, all it takes is an executive order, regulation, court ruling or law and presto they now are. Remember a republic is designed to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. Unfortunately, The US has become a democracy, which means mob rule, the rights of the minority are no longer protected. Look at the property owners and business people being regulated to death.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 8 months ago
                    All animals are equal; some are more equal than others.

                    All statuses are protected. But some statuses are more protected than others, apparently.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                    Aren't PEOPLE legally protected? What's with the 'status' stuff? So you're saying his appearance wouldn't cause angst or discomfort amongst your clients, or your employees? Some might not leave to avoid being in the same breathing space with the likes of him? His presence wouldn't have a negative affect on your income/sales/return customers? I didn't ask if you'd kick him out..I asked if he would be WELCOME. And is it 'respectful' to wear a shirt with that slogan on it out in public?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
                      A legally protected status is any characteristic which businesses and public schools are explicitly forbidden to discriminate against. You'd think that simply saying everyone has equal rights would inherently prohibit discrimination, but apparently that isn't the case. History has demonstrated that in order to ensure everyone is treated equally and fairly, it is necessary to create legally protected statuses for certain characteristics.

                      The Civil Rights Act of 1964 defined the first five legally protected statuses, which are race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, and gender.

                      The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 created certain protections for the disabled.

                      In recent years, many cities have also added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected statuses, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 (ENDA), which would enact nationwide employment protection for the LGBT community, recently passed in the Senate with a vote of 64 to 32, and is currently awaiting a vote in the House.

                      And obviously it wouldn't be respectful to wear a shirt like what you described anywhere, let alone in public, but I can't think of any way to allow business owners to prohibit such attire within their premises without also allowing bigoted business owners to prohibit supportive attire with the opposite message. So I figure it's better to just allow customers to wear whatever they want, though businesses may impose the condition that a customer's attire not be revealing (refusing to serve customers who aren't wearing shirts and/or shoes is perfectly acceptable).
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                        "History has demonstrated that in order to ensure everyone is treated equally and fairly, it is necessary to create legally protected statuses for certain characteristics."
                        I don't think I'm on the list, but I don't feel like I'm being treating equally or fairly. Yet I don't want to be on a whiny list and I don't want to frequent a business that doesn't align itself with my beliefs either. And I certainly do NOT want to FORCE anyone to comply with having to make me feel welcome. Everyone should run their business whatever way they want to..it's THEIRS. I can go there or can go somewhere else...they owe me nothing.

                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
                          It's not a matter of making people feel welcome, it's a matter of protecting people's right to be free from discrimination.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 8 months ago
                            The Hell it isn't. If someone walks in and thinks they're getting the evil eye, or followed around, or any other imaginary thing that could possibly hurt their feeeelings (oh whoa whoa whoa) then it's law suit time. So it's ALL about forcing another to pretend out of fear of legal interference. Which is WRONG. I for one would much rather have someone yell, "Hey you...outtta here." At me when I walked through a business's door than have them pretend to want to serve me... be honest and up front...then we don't have to tip toe around each other and PRETEND. Or have a financial interaction against my will. If you don't want to do business with me then I don't want to do business with you. It couldn't be more easy and there's no confusion.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dpesec 5 years, 8 months ago
          This is what a government does, it exerts force to get it way. Think about it, if you don't do something there's always the treat of force, direct or implied. You can lose your liberty, money or both.
          That's why I strongly support the 2nd amendment to the constitution.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
    This does help clarify the difference between political Libertarianism and philosophical Objectivism.

    Maphesdus:"...it effectively sums up the biggest issue I have with Ayn Rand's philosophy."

    A libertarian says that you have an absolute political right be a heroin addict, to buy sex from prostitutes, to gamble on horse races, and attend the church of your choice to worship God according to your faith. An Objectivist does none of those -- and can explain to you why you should not, either. Libertarians claim that you have a right to be a racist. If you think that is a rational choice, then consider Ayn Rand's famous essay, "Racism."

    Ayn Rand also understood her own limitations. She passed over many issues where people sought absolute answers. For example, she said that she did not consider gun control an important issue and had no answer to balance your right to defend yourself against the monopoly on retalitatory force held by the police. She let it go at that. Darwinian evolution was another. She also said that she found homosexuality disgusting. She was never asked about transgendered, etc., having died in 1982.

    That said, gays are a significant fraction of the "Objectivish" fandom. As with Ayn Rand's opinion of the midi-skirt and a woman president, you have to differentiate philosophical Objectivism from the personal opinions of Ayn Rand.

    Philosophical Objectivism holds that if you refuse to associate with African-Americans or homosexuals just because they are black or gay, then you need to have your head examined ... or at least examine your own head, i.e, check your premises.
    See for instance: "Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation" by Chris Matthew Sciabarra at "Rebirth of Reason" here.
    http://rebirthofreason.com/Store/Ayn_Ran...

    See also this open discussion on the "Objectivist Living" board:
    http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/...
    The basic question is whether you consider Objectivism to be an "open" or "closed" system. Those who find it "closed" look to the published works of Ayn Rand for their answers. The "open" scholars take the non-contradictory body of thought and move forward from there.

    Lets Shrug quoted Ayn Rand: "“In a free society, one does not have to deal with those who are irrational. One is free to avoid them.”

    That is true. The question for an Objectivist is how do you judge those who freely choose to avoid the rational, the productive, the creative, the inventive, because of a non-essential (ascribed) attribute such as "race" or "gender."

    Maphesdus rejoined: "Living in any modern society frequently requires one to deal with and interact with people who do not share one's own views, including people who hold views one considers to be irrational. ... "

    Indeed, it does; and no easy Absolute Answer exists. You have to decide when you are sanctioning your destroyers and when you are just putting up with idiocy... or silliness. A long time ago, one of my Marxist professors asked me: "You think that a business has a right to discriminate because a man's home is his castle." I agreed. He replied that, leaving aside the medievalism of that for now, the Welcome mat in front of a store is an open contract with the public. The same argument came up in early computer hacking court cases when the defense pointed out that anyone who accessed a certain computer was greeted first with WELCOME before they were asked for a username and password, so guessing credentials like guest/guest and visitor/visitor was perfectly all right.

    Argue that as you will, my point is that it is arguable and requires analysis beyond a ten-word Absolute.

    Rozar issued a challenge: "For all of your hatred of discrimination you're forcing people who hate each other to interact and it results in violence. Libertarian ideas still protect individual rights to be your self. Stop making people get along at the point of a gun."

    Back before the WWW when all we had was networks like FidoNet and Usenet, the "Rules of 'Netiquette" said: "Do not offend and do not take offense." You have to learn to get along with people you might not like. That is life.

    The hatred of one person for another speaks to a problem within those who hate. Political Libertarianism finds a solution in an "archipelago" society. As a philosophy for individual happiness (the eudaimonia of Aristotle) Objectivism includes a "biocentric" psychology of self-esteem. People with self-esteem do not hate others for non-essential ascribed attributes such as "race" or "gender." Someone who does hate others is likewise to be avoided by rational, benevolent persons.

    Therein lies a deeper problem: getting along with others in a complex urban milieu.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  Hiraghm 5 years, 8 months ago
      " Libertarians claim that you have a right to be a racist. If you think that is a rational choice, then consider Ayn Rand's famous essay, "Racism." "

      Of course it's a rational choice; and even if it's an irrational choice, it's still your right.

      I will not eat liver. I do not like liver, I do not like the idea of liver, the smell of liver cooking makes me nauseous.

      I love eating steak, however, and the smell of a cooking steak makes my mouth water.

      I choose to discriminate between steak and liver in steak's favor. I have a right to like what I like, to dislike what I dislike, based upon whatever criteria I choose.

      Likewise, I can prefer redheaded women to other women, if that's my taste. Nothing rational about it, but it's still my right, and you have no moral right to dictate to me what kind of women I'm attracted to. Or to demand that I be equally attracted to all women. Maybe I'm repelled by women with blonde hair; again, my right.

      Imagine if one had to marry every person who wanted to marry you...

      "The hatred of one person for another speaks to a problem within those who hate."

      Yeah, all those people who hated Hitler, there's a problem with them. All the American soldiers who hated "Japs" had "a problem", it wasn't that the Japanese were worthy of hatred.

      Let's have the flipside: The love of one person for another speaks to a problem within those who love.

      Hate is as natural and normal an emotion as love. It can be misdirected, but so can love.

      "To love a thing is to know and love its nature."
      To hate a thing is also to know and hate its nature.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 8 months ago
      I'm not sure I agree that 'getting along with others' in any millieu much less a complex urban one is a necessary component of either Libertarianism or Objectivism. I absolutely agree that government has no role other than to protect life and property, even in an Objectivist Philosophy. There can be no room within either form of thinking or living for outside force to MAKE one do anything.
      The rationology of Objectivism or the expansive natural rights of a Libertarian may well provide the answers and guidelines for the individual and that's where it ought to remain.

      KYFHO
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by et85044 5 years, 8 months ago
    Ayn Rand is correct as quoted by LetsShrug
    Maphesdus is wrong. Modern society doesn't REQUIRE us to deal with irrational, but we inevitably do. One is FREE to avoid, not always capable of avoiding the irrational. The existence of this blog shows one can live in society that includes the irrational. If you run a store, why do you care if an irrational person buys your product or not? Irrational covers a lot of territory, from the practically irrelevant to the very serious. Of course you're not going to sign a contract with a known dishonest person and you can easily avoid such a person. Anf you can voluntarily cease watching "Elementary" because the main character says followers of Rand are "morally bankrupt." Most of our interactions are between people who don't know if the other is irrational or not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 5 years, 8 months ago
    I stopped reading at the "only works if you're white, male, straight, Christian". That's the most idiotic assertion I've ever heard in my entire life, and I'm not surprised the Huffington Post published an article so stupid.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
      If that is the most idiotic assertion you have heard in your entire life, then you must be young.

      Although I first enrolled as a freshman in 1967, I completed my bachelor's in 2008 (MA 2010), and unlike the first five times, I just read past the stupid parts of everything and got to the parts that I could benefit from.

      Huffington Post publishes Objectivists, also.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by barwick11 5 years, 8 months ago
        There's so much out there, and so many things to spend my time on, I look at it like this:

        I can find popcorn in a dumpster. That doesn't mean I'm going to eat it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 5 years, 8 months ago
    When one examines Tannehill's theorem and her charts one realizes that she's not a libertarian, she's a socialist. Personally, as a conservative leaning libertarian, I choose not to assign a philosophy to Ayn Rand, I was a child when she passed, and I did not know her, I only know that I hold her ethic, as deposed in her writings, as valid and successful, and that the dependence formed of socialism is detrimental to society.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You'd lose with me.

    This morning I walked up to a couple vendors I'm friendly with at Walmart, and said, "This equality stuff is BS". They both looked at me expectantly.

    A female customer with beautiful blue eyes had, very very politely, come up and asked where to find the candy.
    I was off-duty, but I had her follow me and began guiding her. She thanked me, and I said that employees are supposed to *take* customers to what they're looking for, not just point. And she asked, "Even if they're off duty?"
    To which I glibly replied, "Ah, well, I'm just a nice guy."

    Now, I've posted enough around here for people to know that I'd have responded that way had she been a 72 year old guy using a walker. I was fed a straight line, I didn't consider the source.

    But, then I have a sense of priority. First I'd get your hypothetical decolletage-encrusted female the directions, THEN I'd take the time to flirt with her...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by vandermude 5 years, 8 months ago
    Oh, man - What a great article. I summarizes the main problem with Libertarianism. As the saying goes "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is." The Libertarian ideal would be wonderful, but reality requires more than a theoretical ideal. I want the best for everyone. And this requires that I look to every ideal and combine them together into an intellectual stew that feeds everyone. Ayn Rand may be a top ingredient in the stew, but I will add others to make the stew the most nutritious it can be.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Toneplay 5 years, 8 months ago
    The article says: "The ostensible goal of libertarian theory is a good one: equality of opportunity for everyone."

    I don't know about "libertarian theory" but Ayn Rand certainly didn't care about equality of opportunity. The essential political goal of her philosophy is *freedom*. Why? Because living as a man, rather than as a slave of other men, *requires* freedom.

    It's not about achieving a certain statistical distribution of income. It's about people getting to keep what they earn -- and that's it.

    Now before you say that such might mean people starving in the streets, I'll say that if a rich man is allowed to keep his income, he's not going to stuff it under a mattress, but instead he'll *invest it*. Such will create jobs for less wealthy men.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  johnrobert2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    First off, if she has a map and knows her destination, what does she need me for? Second, if the first premise applies, she has to have a secondary motive in asking me. So, is SHE flirting (given my apparent age and body, probably not unless she's nearly blind or reeeeaaaalllly desperate) or is she really that dumb?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 5 years, 8 months ago
    I thought this situation was encompassed by the legal concept of 'common carrier'. A business thus nominating itself has to abide by strict non-discriminatory behavior. If a business wants to be outside that definition, then it may discriminate on any ground sensible or not. It would of course not be eligible for government grants or contracts. There may be a case for certain activities to be defined as common carrier, these would be government services and public utilities.
    Otherwise, run your business as you choose.

    M. Thanks for discussing. Some things I find quite disgusting such as racial and similar discrimination but also rampant do-goodism by bullies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Marty_Swinney 5 years, 8 months ago
    There can be no such thing as "a right to not be discriminated against" any more than there can be a right to "not be offended." Why? Because, properly understood as to what a "right" actually is, there are no conflicts of rights. There can be disagreements, to be sure, but one person's "right" does not contradict another's person's "right." There can be no such thing (as Rand pointed out) as "a right to violate rights." Observe the absurdity: "I find the notion of a right to not be offended as offensive." One does have a right to not be coerced, however. That is the meaning of liberty: the absence of coercion.
    A "right" to not be offended is the end of freedom of opinion. A "right" to not be "discriminated" (whatever that word means) is the end of freedom of association.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by kb9mmi 5 years, 8 months ago
    Libertarians are not against the civil rights act, but language is the problem. Rights can only be held by individuals not groups. This is the core problem with race issues. Furthermore most of the success of the civil rights movement was brought about by regular people not the government. I think they were the ones spraying the hoses and beating people. Let's not forget that the opponents of the movement were Democrats.

    The top wage earners love taxes and government regulations. Who do you think put them there?
    They will always find ways to get out of paying taxes. The regulations are there to stop average people from pursuing the same dream.If one only could succeed by their own merits there would be a much nobler group of top wage earners. This is what Atlas Shrugged is all about.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nogestapo 5 years, 8 months ago
    The best way to get along with when forced by circumstances to do so is to tell the person what you do not like about him or her, and invite the person to do the same. It may turn out that you will no longer have to interact with that person.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 5 years, 8 months ago
      Actually, that might make you friends. Animosity is largely based on ignorance and a lack of communication. You open up to someone and they do the same and the outcome is usually positive.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 8 months ago
        Animosity can also be based on complete and perfect knowledge of the object of one's animosity.

        Familiarity *does* sometimes breed contempt.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dargo 5 years, 8 months ago
    The person who wrote the article has got a lot of hang ups. Like most people in the homosexual, etc area, all got major hang ups. I have known a lot. All they ever did is beat the drum, I would tell them, anounce what you are then SHUT UP>
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  5 years, 8 months ago
      Why should LGBT people refrain from expressing their sexuality when straight people do not? Enforced silence is a form of oppression.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 5 years, 8 months ago
        Why should pedophiles refrain from expressing their sexuality when homosexuals do not? Why should bestials refrain from expressing their sexuality when pedophiles do not? Why should every fetish on the planet refrain from expressing its sexuality when normal, healthy people don't refrain from expressing their normal, healthy sexuality?

        Enforced audience is also a form of oppression. You want to pretend your sexual hang up is normal and healthy, do so by yourself, don't inflict your irrationality on me.

        The nutty homeless guy wandering around the vestibule of Walmart is free to express his schizophrenia while talking to himself, but he tries to make a captive audience of me and security gets called.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo