4 ms·

Do libertarians care about freedom?

3 points by liotier 12y ago

mindcrime 12y ago
They need to come clean: either they really care about freedom, in which case they need to support the rights of workers in the workplace How exactly where the worker's rights violated? Was there a contract or agreement somewhere saying that he was guaranteed perpetual employment, or that drug use (or lack there of) was explicitly NOT to be considered a factor in his continued employment? If not, there's really no valid argument that his rights were violated. And here's the problem that libertarians always struggle with: real freedom has implications that aren't always obvious, and that can - on occasion - clash with our preconceived biases regarding what is "right" or "fair" or "Just". I will posit that a "free society" is one where nobody is using force or violence to compel someone to do something against their will. In this world, an employee is free to seek whatever employment he wants, and take or reject any given employment situation without needing to request approval from anyone. He/she can also quit whenever desired. But the flip side is that the employer is also free to end the situation when they want, free from any compelling outside force. So if you smoke weed and your boss fires you, it doesn't matter if "the state" considers it legal or not. What matters is what your employer thinks. You aren't entitled to a certain job for perpetuity, regardless of your actions. Actions have consequences, and that's a fundamental tenet of libertarian thinking.
- wmf 12y ago
  Perhaps the author considers recreational drug use to be a form of protected activity such as religion or a form of protected diversity akin to sexual orientation.
maxharris 12y ago
What about the right to free association? Suppose you had a girl/boyfriend that was using drugs, unbeknownst to you, and that this was a deal-breaker for you. Who would argue that you have no legal right to break up with them once you found out? You have a moral right to choose the people you hang around, because the consequences to your own life can be disastrous. Can you imagine landing in jail (and the incredible strain of testifying in a trial) because you were used by your friends as a getaway driver, without your knowledge? This kind of thing actually happens in real life: http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2014/07/18/main_line_times/news/doc53c90720bf986205030311.txt http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2014/07/18/main_li... Given that each of us has the right to associate freely on a personal basis, why should that right be so blithely ignored when the relationship in question involves money? Granted, pot is not nearly as dangerous as other drugs can be (including alcohol.) However, the whole question of the danger involved is best decided by the individual, not the group. After all, it is your life that's on the line when dealing with others, not the group's.
sharemywin 12y ago
little bit of a stretch. I wouldn't want a security guard drunk either. Doesn't mean I don't think workers should have rights.

3 points by liotier 12y ago

They need to come clean: either they really care about freedom, in which case they need to support the rights of workers in the workplace How exactly where the worker's rights violated? Was there a contract or agreement somewhere saying that he was guaranteed perpetual employment, or that drug use (or lack there of) was explicitly NOT to be considered a factor in his continued employment? If not, there's really no valid argument that his rights were violated. And here's the problem that libertarians always struggle with: real freedom has implications that aren't always obvious, and that can - on occasion - clash with our preconceived biases regarding what is "right" or "fair" or "Just". I will posit that a "free society" is one where nobody is using force or violence to compel someone to do something against their will. In this world, an employee is free to seek whatever employment he wants, and take or reject any given employment situation without needing to request approval from anyone. He/she can also quit whenever desired. But the flip side is that the employer is also free to end the situation when they want, free from any compelling outside force. So if you smoke weed and your boss fires you, it doesn't matter if "the state" considers it legal or not. What matters is what your employer thinks. You aren't entitled to a certain job for perpetuity, regardless of your actions. Actions have consequences, and that's a fundamental tenet of libertarian thinking.

wmf 12y ago
Perhaps the author considers recreational drug use to be a form of protected activity such as religion or a form of protected diversity akin to sexual orientation.

maxharris 12y ago

What about the right to free association? Suppose you had a girl/boyfriend that was using drugs, unbeknownst to you, and that this was a deal-breaker for you. Who would argue that you have no legal right to break up with them once you found out? You have a moral right to choose the people you hang around, because the consequences to your own life can be disastrous. Can you imagine landing in jail (and the incredible strain of testifying in a trial) because you were used by your friends as a getaway driver, without your knowledge? This kind of thing actually happens in real life: http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2014/07/18/main_line_times/news/doc53c90720bf986205030311.txt http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2014/07/18/main_li... Given that each of us has the right to associate freely on a personal basis, why should that right be so blithely ignored when the relationship in question involves money? Granted, pot is not nearly as dangerous as other drugs can be (including alcohol.) However, the whole question of the danger involved is best decided by the individual, not the group. After all, it is your life that's on the line when dealing with others, not the group's.

sharemywin 12y ago

little bit of a stretch. I wouldn't want a security guard drunk either. Doesn't mean I don't think workers should have rights.