5 ms·

I don't know much about either the author or libertarian theory in general. The point in this article specifically seems sound. Is there something I missed?

• aww_dang 5y ago
  The entire premise revolves around the toxic topic of Ron Paul's alleged racist newsletters. If I recall correctly, this was an election season gotcha trotted out to stymie Paul in the 2012 season? What is his concept of freedom here? That photographers, bakers or priests should be compelled to service weddings they find offensive? Freedom is loosely defined here and the sleight of hand does the heavy lifting. >The modern American libertarian ideology does not deal with the issue of local bullies. In the world envisioned by Nozick, Hayek, Rand, and other foundational thinkers of the movement, there are only two levels to society - the government (the "big bully") and the individual. If your freedom is not being taken away by the biggest bully that exists, your freedom is not being taken away at all. >Therefore I see no real conflict between Ron Paul's libertarianism and his support for the agenda of racists. It's just part and parcel of the whole movement. Not necessarily the movement as it was conceived, but the movement as it in fact exists. There's a deliberate conflation of freedom of association and outright support of racism here. Generally discussions of race and ID politics don't do well here. Taken to the logical conclusion freedom of association would allow one to discriminate against who uses your business or private property. In the libertarian tradition these businesses are usually described as being at an economic disadvantage to businesses willing to cater to a wider audience. Additionally, the freedom of association argument also cuts both ways. If I have the freedom to associate with whomever I choose, then businesses also have the freedom to hire workers from wherever they choose, without regulation from (racist? xenophobic?) immigration enforcement. True to his style, Noah Smith chooses only one aspect of the debate and narrowly presents the issue to fit his partisan ends. He deliberately misleads the reader, because he is unable to engage with Austrian economics, voluntaryism or libertarian theory on honest terms. Not only is he misleading, he is flat out wrong in his characterization. There is a sea of literature on private law societies where what he characterizes as the "local bully" and the incentives therein are explored in depth. In my reading, it has never been presented as a utopia where "freedom is never infringed" as Noah suggests. Instead the theories are advanced as less horrible than state coercion.
  • DarylZero 5y ago
    > Taken to the logical conclusion freedom of association would allow one to discriminate against who uses your business or private property. In the libertarian tradition these businesses are usually described as being at an economic disadvantage to businesses willing to cater to a wider audience. Which is completely ahistorical and demands ignorance of MLK, a man for whom the USA has a national holiday!
    • aww_dang 5y ago
      Racist dining experiences still exist. You wouldn't know unless you've been targeted. By law, no signs are posted.
      • DarylZero 5y ago
        I'm saying the libertarian theory about economic disadvantage from discrimination is falsified by the well-publicized history of MLK's campaigns of civil disobedience in the south.
        • aww_dang 5y ago
          I hear what you are saying, but I don't agree. Assuming I've never heard of MLK is a stretch. Was there no economic disadvantage to not serving customers? Did the state end racism by passing a law? If those repugnant practices were openly resumed today, would customers patronize those businesses? If not, could it be that society has evolved for the better, independent of legislation? Would you feel comfortable dining in a place where you were unwelcome, or would you prefer that these undercover racists openly advertised as such?
          • DarylZero 5y ago
            • aww_dang 5y ago