5 ms·

This reminds me of the "libertarian" argument that business owners should be allowed to choose not to serve black people. Civil rights were something the gover

This reminds me of the "libertarian" argument that business owners should be allowed to choose not to serve black people. Civil rights were something the government had to step in to protect. I think that net neutrality might be the same kind of thing.

tptacek 14y ago
The "libertarian" argument against the Civil Rights Act isn't that discrimination is good. It's that the prevailing attitude towards discrimination was inevitably going to trend away from discrimination, and that forcing businesses to serve people harms their right to associate freely with the people they chose; while this limitation on free association is obviously benign, it sets us on a slippery slope towards other violations of free association. I am not a libertarian and find this argument very unconvincing. Also, my emotional brain tends to impute racism towards those politicians who have advanced it. But it's not an illogical argument. So in that spirit I'd say: if you think the government should step in to guarantee neutrality, you're not a pure libertarian. You don't need the scare quotes.
- beernutz 14y ago
  That is a good point. I did not mean the quotes as scare quotes, just to emphasize the idea that this might not be a core libertarian argument, but seems to be held up as such. I honestly don't know for certain. The idea that it harms their right to associate freely with the people they chose seems like a misnomer as well. It seems like it does the opposite. It says you are not allowed to turn AWAY customers based on race. Is that phrase or right in the constitution somewhere? I am embarrassingly ignorant in those areas.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I think the race situation is actually the most damning example for libertarianism. I'm not convinced that, without anti-libertrian intervention by Congress and the Supreme Court, we wouldn't still be segregated today.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Well, you disagree with many (most?) libertarians on this point. They think we'd have reached the same freedom from formal racial discrimination that we have today without starting us down the slippery slope of telling businesses who they have to associate with. I'm not sure that's damning. Obviously I agree with you on this, but after years of having to confront smart people on HN who disagree with me fundamentally on issues like this, I'm trying to keep a more open mind.
    - gatlin 14y ago
      Without a hint of sarcasm, I genuinely admire your resolve to be open minded no matter how patently stupid an idea is. I'm not as open minded as you; some day I'd like to be. The moment someone can supply an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that formal discrimination would have ended on its own, then I'll consider it. Otherwise, it sounds like after-the-fact rationalizing from people who were part of the problem and ashamed of themselves (as they should be). Ideology and academic hand-waving about the principles of some Invisible Hand moving society forward simply did nothing. The hands that broke the shackles were very visible, covered in dirt sweat and blood, and very pragmatic. In general, I steer clear of ideological decisions with hand-wave philosophies which hold their conclusions to be self-evident. I see a lot of this in economic discussions, too. My challenge is for these ridiculous vapid ideologies to come with formal justification that doesn't involve circular reasoning or false premises.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        When you consider that the law was only changed due to a change in the prevailing attitudes towards racism, it's not all that far fetched. A much harder argument to make is that the change would have happened as quickly as it did. But then you look at the last 20 years and you wonder whether quickly changing legislative reality is a good thing to want.
      - danielweber 14y ago
        someone can supply an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that How could you do this for any counter-factual of a government policy? Is criticism of the PATRIOT Act stupid if someone cannot provide an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that we wouldn't have been attacked without it?

tptacek 14y ago

The "libertarian" argument against the Civil Rights Act isn't that discrimination is good. It's that the prevailing attitude towards discrimination was inevitably going to trend away from discrimination, and that forcing businesses to serve people harms their right to associate freely with the people they chose; while this limitation on free association is obviously benign, it sets us on a slippery slope towards other violations of free association. I am not a libertarian and find this argument very unconvincing. Also, my emotional brain tends to impute racism towards those politicians who have advanced it. But it's not an illogical argument. So in that spirit I'd say: if you think the government should step in to guarantee neutrality, you're not a pure libertarian. You don't need the scare quotes.

beernutz 14y ago
That is a good point. I did not mean the quotes as scare quotes, just to emphasize the idea that this might not be a core libertarian argument, but seems to be held up as such. I honestly don't know for certain. The idea that it harms their right to associate freely with the people they chose seems like a misnomer as well. It seems like it does the opposite. It says you are not allowed to turn AWAY customers based on race. Is that phrase or right in the constitution somewhere? I am embarrassingly ignorant in those areas.
rayiner 14y ago
I think the race situation is actually the most damning example for libertarianism. I'm not convinced that, without anti-libertrian intervention by Congress and the Supreme Court, we wouldn't still be segregated today.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Well, you disagree with many (most?) libertarians on this point. They think we'd have reached the same freedom from formal racial discrimination that we have today without starting us down the slippery slope of telling businesses who they have to associate with. I'm not sure that's damning. Obviously I agree with you on this, but after years of having to confront smart people on HN who disagree with me fundamentally on issues like this, I'm trying to keep a more open mind.
  - gatlin 14y ago
    Without a hint of sarcasm, I genuinely admire your resolve to be open minded no matter how patently stupid an idea is. I'm not as open minded as you; some day I'd like to be. The moment someone can supply an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that formal discrimination would have ended on its own, then I'll consider it. Otherwise, it sounds like after-the-fact rationalizing from people who were part of the problem and ashamed of themselves (as they should be). Ideology and academic hand-waving about the principles of some Invisible Hand moving society forward simply did nothing. The hands that broke the shackles were very visible, covered in dirt sweat and blood, and very pragmatic. In general, I steer clear of ideological decisions with hand-wave philosophies which hold their conclusions to be self-evident. I see a lot of this in economic discussions, too. My challenge is for these ridiculous vapid ideologies to come with formal justification that doesn't involve circular reasoning or false premises.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      When you consider that the law was only changed due to a change in the prevailing attitudes towards racism, it's not all that far fetched. A much harder argument to make is that the change would have happened as quickly as it did. But then you look at the last 20 years and you wonder whether quickly changing legislative reality is a good thing to want.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      someone can supply an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that How could you do this for any counter-factual of a government policy? Is criticism of the PATRIOT Act stupid if someone cannot provide an objective, verifiable, scientifically valid proof that we wouldn't have been attacked without it?