Well said.

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.

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?

Greetings Choose2Think,
Well said.
O.A.

I really love this! I'm still singing it

Excellent tunage! Thanks :) I'm listening it to over and over whilst I work....

maph you are a serial comply-er. You do not like to rationally address all the laws made with "good intentions" that end up being very bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcFt6Cieg...

Maph likes force... well, unless it's being directed on him, of course.
"Make everyone like me! MAKE THEM!"

I think what you really want is thought control.

The only way to enforce anti-discrimination legislation is to USE FORCE

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.

I disagree.

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.

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>

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, unfortunately Maphesdus is demonstrably correct. Any other assertion constitutes irrationally ignoring the world we live in. This is one of the three or four huge mistakes Rand made...not to denigrate her undeniable genius and triumphs.

Unfortunately, this could never be 100% true.

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?

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.

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.