You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The Problem With Libertarians”.
« Previous Post Judge Andrew Napolitano on Justice
Armed Criminal Gangs Support the War on Drugs! Next Post »
What say you?
I'm sorry, but it is precisely this milquetoast that has us in the fix we're in.
I'm sorry, but this is just a strawman argument against libertarianism.
It is not an argument against Libertarianism. It is a point that Libertarians want total government NON-involvement to the point they want to be allowed to discriminate. That is simply wrong. And every Libertarian business owner that accepts anything from the government, they do not have the right to deny legal U.S. citizens service. If they don't like, they can go somewhere else and open a business.
The business owners don't "accept" the services from the government. They are forced to pay for them just like every other taxpayer. (Large corporations excepted, but they are nothing but constructs of big government.) The small business owner calls the cops because the state ensures that there are no other options. The business owner uses the court system, because there are no other options. Funny how you start out talking about the right to associate then switch mid stream to the government protecting against fraud and shoddy products. Why not continue the same stream of thought? Those two issues are different issues. Personally, I trust UL or Consumer Reports much more than I do any government body.
What you describe as libertarian isn't libertarian. There are no libertarian argument in favor of fraud, "cutting corners," and harming others for example.
Is calling the cops, a service you pay for, considered "accepting anything from the government?" Taken to it's conclusion, since all of us "accept" from the government in one way or another, they should be able to dictate every category of our lives.
But what about the flip-side? How do I know how NOT to do business with a racist nut?
If he was allowed to put up a sign on his private property that said "Nutjob Racists Only" for example, I'd know to steer clear of that establishment. But since I'm not allowed to know if the owner is a twisted lunatic or not, I end up doing business with someone I'd have preferred to avoid.
Think too, how well that sign would work! Nobody would go there except the extreme freaks. They wouldn't be able to stay in business. They'd be ostracised out of the community! They'd be considered (what they are) the lowest of the low. Scorned.
So who does the law against private discrimination really protect? It's starting to look like it protects the racists more than anyone else.