[Drlee]

Liberty. Read the title of the thread, OK?

Here is a news flash for you. Nobody here is saying that Obama is a libertarian. What we are saying is that Paul is not. Just for a change why don't you try not to make politics an exercize in who is worst and second worst. Try and find a real libertarian and run him.

The thread asks if there is a major shift towards libertarianism in US primaries. Here is the simple anser for you. No. Not in the slightest. Libertarianism may be many things but it is not and should not be a right wing ideology. All of the candidates in a primary are playing to their base and that base is preceived to be far right. So all of the candidates are running to the right including Ron Paul.

Obama, in case you have not noticed it is not engaged in the republican primaries and is wasting no time on his own. I did not think it was necessary to remind anyone that as much as he acts like a republican, Obama is a democrat. About the only real bitch republicans could have with Obama is that he is tough on immigration. I could make a very good case for the fact that Obama is a better republican presdent than either Romny or Paul would be. Far better. He hasn't yet turned off a single republican program as you were kind enough to point out.

[Eran]

I have seen first hand the effect of allowing business unsrestrained moral judgment. It sucks.

When and where have you seen it?

The degree to which businesses can discriminate with impunity depends a lot on societal sentiments. Society first had to change its attitudes towards minorities (and then gays) before government took action. But as societal attitudes change, the likelihood that businesses continue to discriminate quickly diminishes.

I cannot imagine many businesses discriminating on the basis of race in today's US, for example, even if there were no laws to prohibit such discrimination. If any tried, they would first be at a competitive disadvantage by virtue of turning away potential paying customers. Second, they would subject themselves to powerful public campaigns against them.

So let's imagine that you are a Jew living in Tucson. You are having a heart attack. They nearest hospital is one that specializes in heart care but unfortunately they do not allow Jews. You die on the way to the hospital.

As usual, you only look at the very end. If I am a Jew (or Christian, for that matter) with a heart condition, I would want to make sure I live in reasonable proximity to a hospital I could use. That means I would avoid, for example, living in the Alaska wilderness, whether or not discrimination exists. So we agree that any responsible person with a heart condition should consider proximately-available medical care. Now, transport to a universe in which anti-Semitism is so common that the nearest hospital to me doesn't accept paying Jewish patients. I will probably want to move (just as I would if I lived in Alaska). Moreover, in a world in which hospitals can stay in business while excluding Jewish patients, either (1) Jews are very rare, or (2) public anti-Semitic sentiments are so widespread, that democratic government is probably the first to discriminate against Jews (as was routinely the case in Europe). If all else fails, I will, (being a Jew and consequently greedy and business-savvy) open a hospital that advertises broadly as accepting Jews. Further, I will charge Jews a little extra, thereby easily out-competing my anti-Semitic competitor.

In all the cases you give, you make a mistake of just landing people into your scenario, without considering either their prior actions, or the behaviour of competitors or entrepreneurs. A truism is that every social problem is also a profit opportunity. In each of the scenarios you present, it is easy to see how discriminating behaviour opens the door for competition to easily out-compete existing discriminating businesses.

What is less easy to see is how existing businesses probably used (as they continue to use now) government force to help them ward off competition. Few things are as common as that kind of cosy relationship between economic and political power. In a a racist or anti-Semitic environment, government officials are rarely exempt. In fact, since government (unlike private business) can externalize the costs of its actions, governments tend to be the biggest discriminators in any society.

I will tell you that in some parts of this country they would be good business decisions that would earn them even more money.

In that case the effected minorities would do well to move away, wouldn't they? Nobody has a right to shop, get a job or a hotel room. For one thing, a store, employer or hospital need not be available at all. Responsible people decide where to live and work based on available resources around them. If those resources are not open to them, they are effectively unavailable. A responsible person makes choices accordingly.

The moral judgment that the right to do business as you please trumps all other rights except, perhaps, doing physical harm to people.

The right of a business (or private people) is to do with their own property as they see fit, subject (no "perhaps") to not physically harming others or the property of others. There are no other rights except property rights. The assertion that a person has a right to shop, for example, is incoherent, as it necessarily means that somebody else has an obligation to provide the person with a store.

[Drlee]

Eran yours is the answer I absolutely expected. You simply allow property rights to trump every single other moral value. Your answer to centuries old discrimination is nothing more than, if you don't like it go away.

But there is an easier and vastly more effective solution. That solution brings the greatest happiness to the most people and is good for business overall. That is to do what we do. We prohibit discrimination as a matter of law. And you know what Eran. People still have the exact freedom you propose for those who feel discriminated against. They can go away.

[Nunt]

Eran yours is the answer I absolutely expected. You simply allow property rights to trump every single other moral value. Your answer to centuries old discrimination is nothing more than, if you don't like it go away.

But there is an easier and vastly more effective solution. That solution brings the greatest happiness to the most people and is good for business overall. That is to do what we do. We prohibit discrimination as a matter of law. And you know what Eran. People still have the exact freedom you propose for those who feel discriminated against. They can go away.

Of course, what you convienently forget is that the most heinous acts of discrimination have been committed by governments. You set up the argument as if it were: "benevolent governments who strive for equality" vs "evil bigot racist sexist corporations". That is very unfair. There is no guarantee that governments won't discriminate. You hope that they fight discrimination instead of cause it. But that is a utopian wish. Your answers to centuries old discrimatioin: "lets hope the government fixes everything". But even today governments discriminate. See for example some right-wing powers growing large and comming to power in Europe. The basis of the government is discrimination. Discrimination based on nationality.

Strange how statists always start their argument with their ideal form of government and then call libertarians utopian. Sorry to burst the bubble. Why don't we start from Jim Crow laws or the Apartheid? Lets just thank governments for fighting discrimination all over the world.

[Eran]

I am glad I am consistent.

But I fear you misunderstand my position in subtle but important ways.

First, I don't allow property rights to trump other moral values. Rather, I want property rights to guide the proper use of force in society. I leave society perfectly open to the use of non-violent, non-coercive means of expressing its moral values. Thus, for example, consumers can boycott discriminating institutions. If anti-discrimination forces in society are as widespread as they are today, no commercial institution could afford to be seen as discriminating. If anti-discrimination forces are weak (as they have been in the past), democratic government will not act to deter discrimination anyway.

You err in only seeing the "positive" (to your mind) role played by government in deterring discrimination, rather than the full picture, in which government was routinely used as a tool for discrimination.

I object to a system in which government is available as a coercive institution, hijacked by various groups to force their peculiar moral views on the rest of the population. I object to that whether I happen to agree with those moral views or not.

How do you feel about a law prohibiting publication of racist books, for example? How about prohibiting preachers from expressing their views against homosexuality? How about prohibiting people from expressing atheist views (if you believe on God, reverse that to prohibiting people from expressing religious views if you are an atheist)?

In all those cases, your personal moral views would be advanced through use of state coercion.

[Drlee]

There is no guarantee that governments won't discriminate.

Google "Laws".

And while you are at it drop the childish use of the term "statists". It is not very bright.

Lets just thank governments for fighting discrimination all over the world.

No son. Let's than the US government for fighting discrimination and work to change governments all over the world which do not.

Now wasn't that easy.

[Eran]

And while you are at it drop the childish use of the term "statists". It is not very bright.

How would you suggest referring to people, such as yourself, who see government as the proper tool for running society? What, in other words, is the proper opposite to "anarchist"?

(and let's restrict ourselves to descriptive rather than judgemental phrases).

[Nunt]

Google "Laws".

You mean these laws: http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws ... +crow+laws ?

It's obvious that you assume good behavior from goverments, you assume bad behavior for private individuals. You assume governments will stop discrimination, while individuals will discriminate. Now, ok you can point to some examples where governments have tried to reduce discrimination. However, I can point to some example where private institutions and indivdiuals have tried to reduce discrimination. I can point to government laws like Apartheid and Jim Crow who discriminated. I can point to private civil rights movements who promoted race-equality.

Still you claim that governments which have given us Apartheid, will help reduce discrimination more than private insitutions who have given us civil rights movements.

Whats wrong with the term statist? According to wiki: "Statism (French; étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that, for whatever reason, a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree. Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism." Since you are advocating the use of a government social policy, it seems to subscribe your position adequatly. Why would it be childish?

[Drlee]

This thread is about the US. We have destroyed Jim Crow laws, unless you want to claim our double standard for same-sex couples applies.

My answer was not hard to understand. Laws can help to prevent bad behavior just as laws eliminated Jim Crow. For what you fail to understand, perhaps because you have never seen it first hand I don't know, is that Jim Crow laws were nothing more than a reflection of the majority opinion. They mandated "separate but equal". The REMEDY for this popular position was the imposition of laws eliminating Jim Crow. These laws were necessary because there was no significant popular movement to change the behavior and beliefs that formed them.

I offer this so you may understand the reality. I want to take you back to the Southern US of my youth. You are black I am white. Though we are both High School seniors you may not come to my school. Your sports team and mine do not compete. If I go on a date to the theater, my date and I sit in the first few rows. You and your date sit in the balcony or back. When we both stopped for a bite after the movie you and your date would sit under the trees behind the restaurant. We pay the same for the ticket and for the food. In some towns you would have the colored theater and restaurant but not in many. You ride in the back of the public bus and will get up and give me your seat. If you don't you will be thrown off the bus and might get a citiation for your behavior if you refuse. When we go to the county park we go to separate sections of the park. When we die we are embalmed by different undertakers and burried in different cemetaries. We can shop in the same stores but if you are in line and I walk up to the register, you move to let me in. You would call my mother and father Sir and Misses and most likely call me mister. You would take your hat off when you spoke to any of us. You would never in your wildest dreams speak to a white girl. That could literally get you hung. You would go to a different church. Your future would be determined by the quality of education at a black college because you would not get your black ass into Ole' Miss or the Citidel, or Georgia Tech. You might aspire to one of the Western or Northeastern schools but good luck with that. Your father would earn very little and expensive colleges would require extrordinary effort on your part. You might like to hear a famous black singer but not if they are playing for white folks. And this famous black performer, rich as she is, is staying with a black family because the whites only hotel would not take her. If I tried to play her music at home my father would probably stop me unless it was one of the "good ni**er" singers like Kate Smith.

And this my friend is what happens when the invisible hand of the market and tradition collide or coincide. In a big enough town it was not as bad because black people had enough money to provide their own facilities though they would be in poor parts of town. They could always move north (and a very many did) where unless they were union members they usually got less pay for the same work, lived in poorer areas and had poorer schools. But fewer signs and at least no government discrimination. Why did the white folks who owned the businesses not change this? Some did. In many places it cost them dearly because white folks refused to shop with coloreds. Remember who had (and still have for that matter) most of the money? White owners kept to this tradition even when (in a very few cases) they knew it was costing them money. By the way. If you are a jew or even looked Jewish you might have to answer a few questions before you stayed at that motel I mentioned.

Do not even presume to think that it was economics that changed the Jim Crow south. Not by a long shot. I could even go so far as to say it played virtually no role in the process. So when you assert "However, I can point to some example where private institutions and indivdiuals have tried to reduce discrimination" forgive me if I do not jump for joy. There were a few but they were few and far between. And their influence was minimal.

Still you claim that governments which have given us Apartheid, will help reduce discrimination more than private insitutions who have given us civil rights movements.

That is correct. It was not Sears and Roebuck joining with General Motors that ended the Jim Crow south. It was ended by people petitioning their elected officials, the courts and in some cases the Army acting on the orders of the president that did it. It was ended because we made laws that ended it. Federal laws that were very unpopular in the south.

I don't blame you for not seeing this. I imagine it is a subject that is difficult to discuss today. It is for me. I was having a drink with a older black friend of mine and we discussed it. He made it out of the Jim Crow south through the military and a California medical school. It was very tough for us to talk about.

Here is the invisible hand of the market you are so proud of at work:

[Nunt]

Here is the invisible hand of the market you are so proud of at work:

I agree. People can be racist. They can be racist in a government, they can be racist in a voluntary institution. So even if the US is stopping discrimination, there are also voluntary institutions stopping discrimination.

So why do you assume that voluntary institutions would discriminate more than governments?

I agree that if the majority of the population is racist, then most voluntary institutions will be racist as well. And as you say, since democratic governments should reflect the will of the majority, the laws of these governments will be racist as well. So the necassary condition for a government to fight racism instead of impose it, would be that the majority of the population is not racist. However, when this condition is fulfilled, most voluntary institutions would be nonracist as well. And those institutions that are still racist would be sanctioned by the rest of the population. Just imagine a firm openly admitting to racism (if it were legal). That firm would immediatly loose all it costumers.

So to summerize:
-if the majority of people are racist, governments would make laws that make racism worse. Whereas voluntary institutions' main weapon to discriminate is the refusal of service, governments can put people in jail.
-if the majority of people aren't racist, then governments would make laws to fight racism. But since non-racists believes are so widespread in society, racism would already not be common and society would sanction those institutions that insist to racist.

In the best case scenario, government laws would hardly do anything, in the worst case scenario government laws would make the effects of racism much worse.

[powertoolsculpture]

If the GOP splits all that will do is guarantee the DNC every election until one party of the other destroys itself. And no, this is not a shift towards libertarianism, since the first place is Mitt Romney, a religious fundamentalist.

Romney is a corporate liberal. He's about as 'fundamentalist' as Barry is a Mullah.

The American public is shifting in the direction of confusion. They still believe this nebulous double-talk about 'rights' and 'voting'; they will continue on the railroad to Hell.

[Eran]

Drlee is referring to an unusual episode in which the national government, representing nation-wide sentiments, imposed its sensibilities in regions where the evolution of sentiments has been lagging.

He is ignoring many cases in which the exact opposite happened - government laws stopped local progressive forces.

And while it is true that a majority racist opinion will result in racist legislation in a democracy, it doesn't follow that racist majority will result in racist private-sector behaviour. The reason is that unlike legislators, private citizens have to pay for their discrimination. For many, the cost of discrimination (which is always there, but could also be raised through non-aggressive action) is too high.


However, I will reiterate a more fundamental difference between libertarians and those in the mainstream.

I believe that it is wrong to use force to impose your morality on others in those cases where the action of others you consider immoral is non-aggressive. It is wrong on two levels - it is morally wrong based on my personal value scale and NAP, but it is also very unwise. It is unwise even from the perspective of (modern) liberals. For if you accept the principle that the majority can impose their moral sentiments using aggression over peaceful minority, you open a Pandora's Box for a wide host of laws that you, as a liberal, would object to when you find yourself in the minority.

It is thus much wiser for a social liberal to accept the NAP in this regard as a prudential aspect of the institutional structure of government. This is very similar to the logic of freedom of speech, applied even when the speech in question is hateful. If you allow censoring of speech with which you disagree, you will likely find yourself in a situation where the same laws are used to censor speech you do support.

Similarly, if you allow laws to prohibit peaceful behaviour with which you disagree, you will likely find yourself in a situation in which the same kind of laws are used to prohibit peaceful behaviour with which you do agree. Drug laws today, and anti-Sodomy laws in the recent past come to mind.

[grassroots1]

One thing that I consistently hear from libertarians is that competition among businesses could somehow serve as a guarantee that there is not abuse in the system and that people can have a high quality of life. But not a single one has been able to give me a satisfying explanation as to why historical examples contradict this. The tendency of money to concentrate at the top of the system because of the efficiency of economies of scale has resulted in the past in domination of the lives of working people and consumers by cartels and concentrated capital. American history is a testament to this contradiction between the desires of concentrated capital and the human needs of the population. Cartels and monopolies didn't form because of government, they formed despite government, and were ultimately deconstructed by government.

The answer to this is an effective and responsive democratic system, which can exist, contrary to the belief of libertarians that government can only do evil. Being rid of regulations and social services at a time when there is unprecedented concentration of wealth would mean handing our country over to a system and a group of people devoted to the intense and single-minded pursuit of profit. This ideology is a threat to our lives and livelihoods and our personal freedom, not to mention to the environment, something that at this point in time should be one of our greatest concerns.

[powertoolsculpture]

Cartels and monopolies didn't form because of government, they formed despite government, and were ultimately deconstructed by government.

Don't even, man.
Gabriel Kolko
Thomas D. Lorenzo
Literally dozens of other economic historians have exploded this myth.

Anyway, I am rather fond of cartels and corporations; I just don't like how democratical-governments turn them into panderers for political correctness.

[Eran]

But not a single one has been able to give me a satisfying explanation as to why historical examples contradict this.

Historic examples of so-called abuse fall into one of two categories:
1. Cases in which force and coercion were used by the business, typically using government as a tool.
2. Business wasn't actually abusive, as evidence by the fact that its presence improved the lives of the people it interacted with.

Please provide any historic example which, to your understanding, doesn't fall into one of the two categories above.

[Rich]

So if I'm a business man and I consider the local population lazy, should I be free to import labour form Mexico or even further a field where people will be more grateful for the opportunities that offer them?

[Eran]

Absolutely.

You own your own business. You are under no obligation to employ the local population, just as none of the local population is under any obligation to work for you. In a competitive business environment, your competitors are probably going to try and hire foreign workers as well, and if you don't, you will be out competed. If you as well as your competitors do hire cheaper foreign labour, you will be forced (through the competition process) to lower your prices, and that will benefit the entire local population, not just those who might have worked for you.

Not to mention that such move would benefit those Mexican (or other) labourers, provide them with an opportunity to improve their lives and the lives of their family, and contribute to the local economy - those same labourers will have to buy lodging, food, entertainment, etc., further stimulating the local economy.

[Rich]

Well I commend you on your view Eran, However, I have to say I find most Libertarians hypocrites, who preach an abstract and utterly utopian purity, but in reality support the Bridge To Nowhere, massive Border Fence, Tarp supporting, anti Death Panel, Medicare increasing, deficit increasing, anti abortion, war on drugs, Iran bullying, authoritarian state Republicans.

[Kman]

Well I commend you on your view Eran, However, I have to say I find most Libertarians hypocrites, who preach an abstract and utterly utopian purity, but in reality support the Bridge To Nowhere, massive Border Fence, Tarp supporting, deficit increasing, anti abortion, war on drugs, Iran bullying, authoritarian state Republicans.

[Eran]

Rich,
I hope you continue to find my views consistent, if not always palatable, and rarely conventional.

However, I would urge you to distinguish between libertarians and Republicans, even Republicans who claim to be libertarian.

No person who supports massive government infrastructure investments, increase in Medicare in particular and spending in particular, foreign adventurism not to mention war on drugs is a libertarian.

For what constitutes mainstream amongst libertarians, please have a look at the Cato Institute and their educational web site libertarianism.org. For more extreme/radical/principled/consistent exposition of libertarian ideas, there is the invaluable Mises Institute.