US Politics: Papers of Nefarious Clinton Regime Released!

[BloodRider]

OK, I apologize for calling you a fascist/bolshevik. I went too far, you got me there. But I do find your blase attitude, which seemingly sees no limits on state power over businesses, to be dangerous and disturbing. As is your justification, which is that businesses are not "people." It's a trend of thought that's become quite popular among the more authoritarian progressives (and no, I won't retract calling you an authoritarian) and it's logical end is that citizens have none of the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as long as they are in a professional setting. "Serve the people's interests" = is the photographer not "people", with an interest in following her religious principles? And how is "consideration given to both sides" if she is just told "tough, deal with it"?

You again strawman and slippery slope my argument. Saying a business has to abide by certain rules in way is equivalent to saying the state has total power over businesses. It is, in fact, saying that the state has the right to tell But you have already lost that battle, so you make up stupid arguments, and try to put them in my mouth. Let me be clear, I am saying that in this instance the state clearly had the power authority and the moral right to say the following. If you keep doing bigoted shit we will penalize you.

You keep saying businesses are not people, and yet you have no evidence for your prima facie absurd case. Businesses are made up of people, yes, but they are NOT PEOPLE. What is this cake businesses' religion? How often did it go to church? Will it go to heaven after the state dissolves it? I would be very disturbed if the state told someone that they had to provide services to a group they did not like. But lets be clear - that is not what happened. What happened instead was person entered into a contract with the state whereby she was given shielding from liability and other personal risks and where she, in return agreed to run her business according to certain rules, including relevant laws surrounding operating with the public and following civil laws. When faced with following those laws, she decided that she would not run her business in the way she agreed initially. The proper thing to do would then to go to the state and say "I can't honor this contract". The state is very amenable to such actions - they would have let her out - no penalty. But no, she said, Fuck those laws, but keep giving my business those sweet benefits.

BTW, consideration is a legal term. It means that both parties get something out of the deal, and it is used to determine if a contract is valid. The consideration is given on a contract's signing. At the point in the story where she gets told "tough, deal with it" she had already violated her contract with the state. In effect she had told the state "tough, deal with it". What you want is consequence free actions for these bigots. Which is why I said you are not a bigot in theory, just one in practice. What gives them the right to break a valid, non coercive contract they made with the state? They got their benefits, and now, when they have to uphold the parts of the contract they don't like, they don't just get to say fuck you, I lub Jebus too much.

Oh and the accusations of authoritarian? Fucking laughable given the edicts you have pronounced over the last few threads.

[Ormond]

Bad loss for Democrats in the special election in Florida #13 tonight, Jolly beat Sink by 3 points. Its Bill Young's old seat, and he won his last election by 15 points, so you'd think that wouldn't be that bad. But Young only kept winning by so much because he was an institution there, its a swing district where Obama beat Romney by 1 point in 2012. Jolly was bad, underfunded candidate, and he still won.

Can you explain where you get the "underfunded" part from? My impression was that both sides were pouring millions into this election and it was one of the most expensive "special elections" for a US House seat ever.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I think this entire issue can be boiled down to RG thinking that only state coercion is bad. If someone other than the state is doing the coercing, there's no problem.

I suspect if there had been a state-owned photography company turning away same-sex customers on the basis of religion, RG would be appalled.

No, coercion (more properly "aggression") is bad regardless of whether the source is government or private individual/business. But you are mistaken in trying to cast this as "coercion vs. coercion". Refusal of service by a private entity is not aggression or coercion. Compelling a private business to take photos is

Of course state or public agencies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate - they are funded by tax dollars and subject to the Constitution.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Ok, so, it being the case that you recognize some state coercion is necessary to protect property rights, and following from this that the state will have even to coerce some property from citizens in order to do this so that property rights can practically exist, is it not also clear that in order for freedom to practically exist it will be necessary that, just as some amount of property is coerced from citizens by the state, so must some amount of freedom (the freedom of businesses to engage in discrimination, in this case) be coerced from citizens?

I don't really see how it follows, no. If the state exists to protect property (starting with a citizen's physical body) from aggression, how does it serve that goal by "coercing away freedom" in order to prevent private discrimination? It is acting directly contrary to its mandate. On the other hand, minimal taxes to fund police, military forces, etc is a small and regrettable violation by the state in order to serve the broader goal of protecting property.

(^This is how libertarian thought usually runs on this. The state is justified in protecting citizen's property as cheaply and with as little violation of rights as possible. It doesn't get to pursue abstract social goals or try to engineer new attitudes in its citizens)

[Sci-2]

Ignoring for a moment that I'm pretty sure we're talking about the photographer that said something like "I can't do this for you because of my relationship with Jesus" meaning what Jesus would condemn or condone is entirely relevant, we cannot just say "religion is whatever people think it is" from a legal POV. If you make religion "whatever people think it is" then it's impossible to differentiate between people discriminating for "sincere" beliefs, and people making shit up so they can be bigots. And you're just okayed every bullshit cult ever, after all who are you to tell those people who think that one guys is god and has him sleep with there 14 year old daughters that their belief isn't "sincere" after all "religion is whatever people think it is."

Well, that is the general issue with faith based discrimination. Religions can believe anything.

I wouldn't be sure how to distinguish Christianity or Hinduism from any "bullshit cult" as the authority all comes from personal gnosis.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

What happened instead was person entered into a contract with the state whereby she was given shielding from liability and other personal risks and where she, in return agreed to run her business according to certain rules, including relevant laws surrounding operating with the public and following civil laws.

Survey says? Total nonsense. One's obligation to abide by anti-discrimination laws has nothing to do with the form of organization of one's business. Sole proprietorships are the most common form of business organization in the United States. Unlike a PC or LLC, you aren't getting limited liability and are 100% responsible for the business' debts. Has nothing to do with whether you have to abide by anti-discrimination laws.

[karaddin]

Well, that is the general issue with faith based discrimination. Religions can believe anything.

I wouldn't be sure how to distinguish Christianity or Hinduism from any "bullshit cult" as the authority all comes from personal gnosis.

Which is why to me freedom of religion should be freedom to believe as you wish, but not carry over to acts you claim are necessary for your belief. You start going and giving special consideration to one set of beliefs just on the basis that more people hold them (rather than they are more meritorious, none of them can be shown to have more merit than others given what we are talking about) and that's an odd way to justify it. I realise that this isn't an application of the law that could be implemented as things stand, since we have a rather long history of certain religious observance being granted protections, but if starting from scratch that's what I'd have it mean. At the very least however we can stop things getting worse by handing out exemptions to secular law on the basis of "I believe this!". Well that's nice, continue believing it while you serve the awful hateful trans lesbian.

[Wise Fool]

Well, that is the general issue with faith based discrimination. Religions can believe anything.

I wouldn't be sure how to distinguish Christianity or Hinduism from any "bullshit cult" as the authority all comes from personal gnosis.

Personal gnosis? Not from the vast, vast majority of followers. Really, most members of most religions are just agnostics who have adopted a religious practice to fit in with a community or culture, in large part because they were raised that way. They wear a particular religion the same way people wear a particular hairstyle or clothing fashion, only a bit more so.

But anyway, I don't think it's fair to say that a religion can be just literally, absolutely any belief whatsoever, and that therefore, literally any action one takes is a religious action covered by religious freedom. That makes the entire concept meaningless. It might be tricky to distinguish between Christianity and, say, The Holy Church of Not Wiping Your Ass After 8 PM On Tuesdays, but there's a good reason to at least try. Otherwise the hospitals could be inundated with lawsuits by cranky old men who don't want their asses wiped and can now use "religion" as the reason instead of "that damn nurse looks like a foreigner to me." Similarly so when the "religious practice" is just plain and simple discrimination based on race or gender or sexual preference or whatever.

To be sure, if you absolutely do not want to wipe your ass after 8 pm on Tuesdays, don't. But then if you get a job and you come back from dropping a deuce at 8:30 pm one Tuesday night reeking of shit, you don't get to keep your job, and the business that supports poop-stained employees might have to "infringe" upon your "religious freedom." And the same is true if your "religious practice" is that you can't dare sell goods to gay people. Get a new job - one where it doesn't harm the public and you can wallow in your own filth at any time of day.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Which pretty much sums up libertarian thought, now that I think about it. Coercion is something practiced only by government; accusations of private coercion are met with hair-splitting, hyperlegal distinctions that amount to no real distinction. Libertarian thought has very few points of contact with the real world, which is why it's so internally consistent. Once you assume human beings are frictionless spheroids of uniform density**, why, any philosophy works!

**Thanks to Charlie Stross

Profoundly stupid.

Listen, you don't have to like libertarianism. But if you want to talk about it and not sound like a total ignoramus, then you have an obligation to do the tiniest bit of legwork to actually understand it on its own terms. I'm not much of a Marxist, I admit. But if I walked around talking about how Marxism is stupid because "exploitation" is something practiced only by those with the ownership of the means of production against the proletariat and that's hyperlegal nonsense because sometimes it's theoretically possible to have a situation where labor is so scarce that the workers can set the terms of employment with their employers - then I would be a fucking moron. Marxism has a highly developed exploitation theory. I may not agree with it, but I have to understand it before I can criticize it without being an idiot.

I think it's entirely possible to disagree with the non-aggression principle, to disagree that negative rights are the only rights that exist, to defend the use of force in imposing affirmative obligations on people ("positive rights"), etc. and so on. But it's dumb, false, and not true to make absurd statements like libertarians believe that only the government can practice coercion, or that distinctions between, say, being compelled to do something under threat of arrest or confiscation of property and refusing to do something amount to mere "hair splitting." It's dumb and beneath you, and you should know better.

[Shryke]

There's a difference between Libertarianism as a political philosophy and libertarianism as espoused by most political libertarians. Same for Marxism.

[Sci-2]

There's a difference between Libertarianism as a political philosophy and libertarianism as espoused by most political libertarians. Same for Marxism.

Damn, was just going to post this. Seemed obvious to me that Tracker was talking about the second kind.

Whatever happened to the supposed chain of events that leads to churches being forced to marry gays? As I recall it was shown churches already don't have to marry interracial couples and so the whole chain was invalidated?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

There's a difference between Libertarianism as a political philosophy and libertarianism as espoused by most political libertarians. Same for Marxism.

When someone purports to "sum[] up libertarian thought" I give them the courtesy of taking them at their word.

[Shryke]

When someone purports to "sum[] up libertarian thought" I give them the courtesy of taking them at their word.

I gave him the courtesy of reading his post, the way it was phrased and the context it was delivered in. The post is not always terribly clear, but the context explains it. At worst, it's mistake is in conflating the two things I mentioned.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Damn, was just going to post this. Seemed obvious to me that Tracker was talking about the second kind.

How can that possibly be? Tracker was responding, and adding to, a criticism of Ramsay Gimp made by Roose Bolton's Pet Leech. Ramsay Gimp has been making fairly orthodox Rothbardian arguments regarding coercion. I'm not even sure what a "political libertarian" is vs. "Libertarianism as a political philosophy," but I have a sneaking suspicion that Ramsay Gimp is not Rand Paul.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I gave him the courtesy of reading his post, the way it was phrased and the context it was delivered in. The post is not always terribly clear, but the context explains it. At worst, it's mistake is in conflating the two things I mentioned.

Funny - I gave him the courtesy of not only reading his post, but also the post that he was "responding to" - which was a direct criticism of Ramsay Gimp, who as near as I can tell is not a "political libertarian" and who has been espousing standard "Libertarianism as a political philosophy" theories of coercion.

[Shryke]

Funny - I gave him the courtesy of not only reading his post, but also the post that he was "responding to" - which was a direct criticism of Ramsay Gimp, who as near as I can tell is not a "political libertarian" and who has been espousing standard "Libertarianism as a political philosophy" theories of coercion.

I don't think you get the distinction at all then. Because Ramsay Gimp is exactly what I'm talking about when I say "political libertarian". (ie - somebody advocating libertarian thought in a political context/debate/policy discussion/etc)

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I don't think you get the distinction at all then. Because Ramsay Gimp is exactly what I'm talking about when I say "political libertarian". (ie - somebody advocating libertarian thought in a political context/debate/policy discussion/etc)

If that's all you mean by "political libertarian" then your prior distinction between "political libertarian" and "Libertarianism as a political philosophy" doesn't make any sense, because Tracker was affirming a post that was criticizing Ramsay Gimp who is just an example of a political libertarian espousing libertarianism as a political philosophy in a political context/debate/policy discussion/etc.

[Sci-2]

Wow this feels meta...

If nothing else, I credit Ramsay with making the US Politics threads very entertaining!

[The Marquis de Leech]

No, coercion (more properly "aggression") is bad regardless of whether the source is government or private individual/business. But you are mistaken in trying to cast this as "coercion vs. coercion". Refusal of service by a private entity is not aggression or coercion. Compelling a private business to take photos is

Refusal of service *is* coercion. By denying access to a service, you're using your power to dictate to others where they can and cannot shop. There are occasions when positive liberties trump negative liberties (to dig up my earlier example, the mines-around-the-house case compels me to not use my property in particular way, and it does so in order to ensure that you can access the outside world).

Of course state or public agencies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate - they are funded by tax dollars and subject to the Constitution.

I meant if our hypothetical state-owned photography company were competing in marketplace on its own terms (i.e. is a nationalised industry, not a government agency).

[Shryke]

If that's all you mean by "political libertarian" then your prior distinction between "political libertarian" and "Libertarianism as a political philosophy" doesn't make any sense, because Tracker was affirming a post that was criticizing Ramsay Gimp who is just an example of a political libertarian espousing libertarianism as a political philosophy in a political context/debate/policy discussion/etc.

Um, no, it does make sense. Sci-2 certainly understood the point. Now I have no idea what the heck you are talking about or think you are talking about though.

There is a difference between libertarianism as, like, a formal political philosophy (what you were talking about above) and libertarianism as it is expressed by people who identify as libertarians in policy debates. TN was talking about the second, as was the post he was replying to.

Your call to "understand libertarianism on it's own terms" is irrelevant to the discussion of what libertarians actually advocate and why.