From Larken Rose:
This may come as a shock to collectivists, but narrow-minded, prejudiced, rude, stupid bigots have the same rights as everyone else.
The recent television discussion between Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) and Rachel Maddow (collectivist propagandist) has gotten a lot of attention, and has prompted a flood of comments from people who don't know how to think. Personally, I think Rand deserves some criticism for his comments ... for being too civil and too "moderate" with the state-violence-worshiping hostess. To the question of whether a restaurant owner has the right to have a "No blacks allowed" policy, the principled answer would have been, unapologetically and unconditionally:
"Yes, a restaurant owner has the absolute right to serve and not serve whomever he damn well pleases, for any reason or no reason at all. An owner can say 'No blacks allowed,' or 'No whites allowed,' or 'Only atheist albino midgets allowed.' It's his damn property, and no one--not you, not me, and not any collective or any 'government'--has the right to initiate violence to FORCE him to do whatever WE think would be the polite, fair, noble thing."
It's bizarre how statists--those who advocate that the violence of "government" be used to fix every "unfairness" they see (or imagine)--are the ones who most often claim to be "tolerant." To "tolerate" something doesn't mean to approve of something, or to support it--it only means to LET IT EXIST. Therefore, the bigot who chooses not to deal with HIS money, or on HIS property, with a particular racial or religious group, but who doesn't go onto THEIR property to harass or attack them, is being 100% TOLERANT of them. On the other hand, Rachel Maddow, and millions of other well-indoctrinated collectivist Americans, who seek to have "government" FORCIBLY IMPOSE their version of "fairness" on the bigot, are being completely INTOLERANT. Ironically, they feel GOOD about it, and consider themselves compassionate and morally superior for wanting to INTRODUCE VIOLENCE into the situation, via "legal" coercion.
I wonder what Comrade Maddow would think if the Department of Fairness determined that she was spending too much of HER money at white-owned businesses, and COMMANDED her to change her evil ways. Would she suddenly recognize the PRINCIPLE involved here? How about if the Fairness Fascists told Black Entertainment Television (BET), or the NAACP, that they were required to hire more whites, and were commanded to stop trying to target their services towards one particular RACIAL GROUP?
The principle is not complicated: You get to decide who YOU will associate with and trade with, and I get to decide who I will associate and trade with. And yes, some people--quite a few, in fact--will make choices that you or I would find stupid, or even offensive. You have the right to not patronize businesses you don't approve of. You have the right to publicly criticize their practices. You have the right to encourage other people to boycott such businesses. But you do NOT have the right to choose what is to be done with someone ELSE'S property. The notion that the collective has some right to forcibly impose its beliefs on every individual is infinitely more destructive than letting people be stupid with their own property.
Exactly what threat is posed to society by some racist dude who won't let people of another race onto his property? Damn near none. (And how many customers do you think the guy would get anyway?) His choices of who to associate with, and who to trade with, are his--and his alone--to make. That is true of everyone, of all races and religions.
In contrast, an enormous threat is posed to society by people thinking that they have the right, via "government" mercenaries, to FORCE people into associations and trades those people don't want to make. You can call it "affirmative action," or "anti-discrimination laws," or some other euphemisms that make you feel better about it, but what you are advocating is adding VIOLENCE into a situation to try to achieve whatever YOU deem to be "fair." And if you think that using the state to FORCE people to deal with each other is going to lead to peace, love and harmony, you're a bonehead. Do you really think the KKK guy with the "government" gun pointed at his head is suddenly going to start loving black people? Of course not. Getting "government" mercenaries involved will only exacerbate the problem.
And don't think the tyrants don't know this. What those in "government" have done in the name of improving "race relations" was DESIGNED to forever DIVIDE the races, and to keep both sides forever begging "government" for its blessings and preferential treatment. The result is perpetual strife among the citizenry, and increased power for politicians.
Keep in mind, slavery lasted as long as it did only BECAUSE IT WAS SANCTIONED BY "GOVERNMENT." How long do you think slavery would have lasted if there was not a national network of "law enforcement" using violence against those who attempted to free slaves? And the Jim Crow "laws" were edicts from the tyrants, FORCING business-owners to discriminate. Remember the Rosa Parks incident? It was the result of a "law" mandating racial segregation on busses.
So do you really think that the establishment DEMOCRAT party which pushed for those segregation and other racist "legislation" suddenly grew a conscience when the "civil rights movement" expanded? No, they just found a NEW way to control and subjugate people, black and white. The racist, divisive, oppressive "Jim Crow" type policies were replaced by racist, divisive, oppressive "civil rights" legislation. (Heck, they didn't even change the faces. Try doing an internet search for Robert Byrd--U.S. Senator and former KKK big-wig--and the term "race mongrels," and see if you still believe the Democrat party establishment has the best interests of black folk at heart.)
(As an aside, I find it very impressive that way back in 1865, Frederick Douglass, a former slave, could already see that "government" efforts to "help" the freed slaves was a really bad idea, and that the best thing the politicians could do was NOTHING. Regarding the politicians' "attempt to prop up the Negro," Douglass implored them to simply "Let him alone," and "Let him fall if he cannot stand alone!")
In short, if you want to be tolerant, open-minded, compassionate, and peacefully coexist with people of all colors, creeds, etc., then you need to recognize that "government" is ALWAYS the enemy, even when it pretends to offer "help." It will ALWAYS try to pit you against some other group, and will ALWAYS try to use differences (or make differences) in order to increase its own power. It will ALWAYS add threats and coercion to the situation--that's all it ever does, and all it can do (that's all "law" is)--and that is NOT the way to achieve harmony, justice, or fairness.
"Government" is the enemy of blacks, the enemy of whites, the enemy of humanity. But as long as the people keep falling for the tyrant tricks--as long as we keep crying to the control freaks in "government" to forcibly mpose OUR preferences and beliefs on everyone else--then human society will be nothing but a cage full of squabbling brats, all whining for the jailer to whip the OTHER prisoners harder (which is pretty much what every election is).
The other choice--and I realize this is pretty darn radical--is to accept the fact that ....
I OWN ME, and YOU OWN YOU.
And that premise is in contravention to a whole lot of what "government" assumes.
13 comments:
So, you want a free market state without government? Great. Try Somalia.
I assume that since a person has a right to be a bigot in his own business, and deny services to whomever he chooses, society conversely has a right to deny him police and fire protection, running water, sewer and garbage service?
Does an electric utility or cooperative have the right to deny the bigot's business electricity? Does not the electric utility have the same rights to serve whom they choose?
May we as a collectively polite society put restrictions on those with whom we disagree?
Herein lies the problem with Libertarian doctrine. The Libertarian believes that he should be allowed to live his life unfettered by government intrusion, until he needs intervention by the government to protect his right to be a jerk.
Refined Libertarianism has it's merits. I certainly don't want to appear to be defending Rachel Maddow, but this guy is simply a moron.
The idea that restaraunts should have the "right" not to serve black people was a controversial position.... in 1960.
This "government is the devil" diatribe would be scary if it wasn't so stupid. Right, government is always the enemy of minorities. And when the slaves heard Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation, I'm sure they were real pissed. And Brown v. Board of Education was met with a chorus of boos across black communities. Right.
The "government mercenaries" thing was particularly offensive. And to think, I thought the reason policemen patrolled the streets, fireman ran into burning buildings, and servicemen fought and died overseas was to protect the public.... turns out they're just government mercenaries. I've heard African rebels say nicer things about their government.
The author's infatuation with "government violence" is also ammusing. In many countries, writing a piece like this would result in your dissappearance, and maybe your family's as well. Our government actually protects this kind of blather, and yet they're the one's supposedly using violence to control the public.
At least I got my fix of irony for the day.
Thought-provoking piece. Wait a minute--strike the word "thought" from that comment. The last thing the author read was a collection of 1962 issues of "Human Events."
Bill, Michael, BradenL: well put. I particularly like Michael's point: if you don't want to do business with everybody, then everybody—i.e., society—can choose not to do business with you. No sewer, no roads, no fire protection. Only fair, right?
If you choose to engage in commerce, you can't carry out policies that exclude an entire class's capacity to engage in commerce. Otherwise, a sufficiently bigoted business community could exclude Indians to the point where they could not buy groceries, clothes, fuel, or any other necessities and would have no choice but to produce all of their goods at home instead of enjoying the economic benefit of specialization. Libertarianism that simply shouts "Do whatever you want with your property" dissolves into contradiction when it says bigots can deny people not like them the basic economic rights to enjoy their liberty. You don't have to be a "statist" to recognize that we still have to establish at least minimum common restrictions and obligations on actors in the marketplace.
Am I a "statist"? I don't love the state as a thing of beauty in and of itself. I recognize the necessity of the state as the means to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
[Sorry about that superfluous L, Braden... call it keyboard-colon blockage! ;-) ]
Well, at least this topic generated some comment. I am working at Sam's Club this weekend; I'm a Serta Event Specialist.
While readers of this blog--er, online event, I should say--think of things to say about things not said in the topic, I shall be a cog in the wheel of corporate presentation, tucked away between stacks of Coke, beer and garden entertainment accessories.
Come see me, 11-5 daily. Lie down on the mattress. Help swell my numbers.
The author makes some valid points concerning the overreaching of the federal government into the private sector, but the gross overstatement of the negativity of government in itself, and the complete lack of understanding on the necessity of occasional governmental involvement, nullifies the argument. Thoughtful people, who may be open to new perspectives, will be turned away by this exaggerated presentation of the issue, thereby rendering this ineffective as a tool of persuasion and significant only to those who already share these views.
Libertarians have a cool name unlike the tea-party-baggers but they sure have equally stupid agendas!
Libertarianism leads with self induced ignorance and the tea-party leads with self-righteousness.
Both of them need to learn from the GOP and just keep their mouths shut and do nothing because opening their mouths like this Larkin does just removes all doubt, a cool name don't mean squat when their lips move.
Cory said:
"I particularly like Michael's point: if you don't want to do business with everybody, then everybody—i.e., society—can choose not to do business with you. No sewer, no roads, no fire protection. Only fair, right?"
I think this is a spurious and therefore unhelpful comparison. Public and private entities have a separate and distinct set of rights, duties, and obligations.
Neal, at least, has made a thoughtful distinction concerning services presumably paid for by the taxes of one whom we may find reprehensible personally.
Our Liberal Democracy (Republic) is indeed imperfect, as is our society, but it's hard to argue that we are not in some sense a "collective."
Writers and thinkers like Rose, Paul, Rand, et al will do well to remember that it is "We" the people, not "Me" the people.
And that a totally "free" market is just as prone to tyranny as a regulated one.
Take the recent big skid mark in the Gulf for example. Who do we want in charge there right now?
BP or BO?
Yeah, all this makes sense to an anarchist.
If the rule of law trumps civil war in a civil society, order cannot equal chaos.
ip has argued that there should be a directory of businesses delineated by political ideology so patrons can support like-minded operators. Is that realistic or sustainable?
Bob, how could the Libertarian model exist in Gene Roddenberry's universe without violence?
Post a Comment