4 ms·
Yes I know the law. The law is ideocratic, in mandating that people act in their private (in the true sense of private) capacity in accordance with a set of ide
by CryptoPunk 5y ago
Yes I know the law. The law is ideocratic, in mandating that people act in their private (in the true sense of private) capacity in accordance with a set of ideological values. It assumes that the moral good of a person acting out a particular value justifies using force to control a person's actions. This attitude towards others is sanctimonious and irreverent to people's rights.
It is not a legitimate use of the force of the state. Jim Crow laws were similarly ideocratic, in imposing pro-segregationist ideological values onto private citizens. We foolishly went from one form of sanctimonious/domineering ideocracy, to another.
- Blahah 5y agoThe state isn't doing anything in this scenario. It's Airbnb and there's no force - people are free to not use it.
- CryptoPunk 5y agoTrue, but there are laws that Airbnb falls at risk of violating if it does not implement these policies. Without these policies, it is liable to be sued under the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act for hundreds of millions of dollars. Civil Rights lawsuits are a very large area of legal activity.
- franga2000 5y agoNobody is limiting what you can do in private, but on the public market of goods and services. If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't get to participate. There is no irrevocable "right to profit".
- CryptoPunk 5y agoSomething being publicly accessible doesn't make it public in the sense of being a government function. It is still a private function. If someone wants to advertise to the public that they only rent to [race of people], in their private capacity - as the private owner of their property - they should be able to. >>There is no irrevocable "right to profit". Profiting simply means benefiting from an exchange. It is a completely private endeavor and the government should not be depriving people of the right to do it in order to force them to act out a particular set of ideological values. The governance principles you're promoting are those of a secular theocracy, i.e. an ideocracy.
- otterley 5y agoHere we go again. Groups of people who form a society through a government have shared values, and our laws reflect those values (though often imperfectly).
- CryptoPunk 5y agoYes, and the common value should be non-violence, and the liberty to live one's life within the limits set by that. It should not be exerting totalitarian control over people, via the legal system, to force them to act out a particular set of values in their private capacity. What you advocate is in principle no different than communism, fascism or theocracy. The innovation was in making the individual sovereign.
- otterley 5y agoMost of the laws we've made since the founding of the U.S. have been written in the blood spilled by previous generations. They are reactions to failures caused by abuses of freedom. And, yes, there is such a thing as an abuse of freedom. History reveals that people have a nature to oppress each other unfairly in the absence of laws to ensure that does not happen.
- CryptoPunk 5y agoThis is a Whig reading of history, that assumes change is always positive, and regression is not. The laws you are defending are blatant oppression. A person who is acting peacefully, even if they are acting out values we subjectively perceive as not morally virtuous, should not be punished by the state, and its apparatus of violence (police, courts and prisons, used to compel compliance).
- handoflixue 5y agoThat's how every law works: we're using force to enforce our values. "Thou shalt not kill" is an ideological value. "Thou shalt not steal" takes as granted the entire ideological framework of property and capitalism.
- CryptoPunk 5y agoThe enforcement the value of non-aggression is the bare minimum requirement for a peaceful society. Without this being the shared value, people are not free to live out all of their values.