Wait, so no more picketing?
No picketing continues if there are racist, sexist, xenophobic reasons.
so i get picketed if i dont violate peoples rights in one way, whereas i dont get picketed if i dont violate peoples rights in another way.
because somehow the way i dont violate peoples rights is important…?
Well like Juan has been saying ‘the isms’ are collectivist but on my argument I would say that yes I have subjective preferences therefore why can I not picket racist businesses but not picket businesses that prefer blue stars in their store front rather then red stars?
you can have whatever libertarian consistent hobbies you like. dont confuse them with libertariainsm itself is the only warning i would give.
Well I see libertarianism as the advocation of individual rights, liberty and individualism. If you are a thin libertarian then anything I do that is not a violation of the NAP is libertarianism.
its compatible with libertariaism. its not libertarianism itself.
when someone is not the victim of rights violations. then as you advocate to them (or their not-oppressor ) individual rights, liberty and individualism, you add nothing, since they have all of that good stuff already.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Bingo. Thank you very much.
A valid point however isn’t liberty the exercising of action without being coerced or coercing another? I guess it boils down to who you agree with more, the individual who experiences racism or the individual who engages in it.
Which is a mistake - I agree. However the fact remains, there are people who see ALL individuals belonging to race X as inferior. That’s the sort of collectivism I have a problem with, and I don’t think that makes me a ‘left’ anything.
And if left-libertarians object to that kind of collectivism, I’m not sure how they can be faulted.
The stuff about sexism is sillier, granted, although you’d probably find people who make generalizations of the type “women are more stupid than men” - which seems to be a stupid thing to say.
I’ll mention that under so called english common law women’s property was controlled by their husbands. I wonder why ? Because women were stupid ? Just like blacks were ‘natural’ slaves ?
Not sure that makes much sense…
That’s not an argument, but at attempt at ridicule. Which is fine, but misses the point.
Funny. Of course Helfeld provides a correct definition of individualism at least five times - just one sample “your character isn’t determined by your race”
The other guy, well, is a politician…and a bit dumb. But the problem with Lewis’ position is that he wants affirmative action so he must violate his own rule - that’s what Helfeld is getting at.
Also Lewis says that all people in a state which had racist laws are guilty of racism - another collectivist statement (though this one is closer to statistical truth) - bottom line is, Lewis is not that clever - but that doesn’t mean that rejecting racism is at odds with libertarianism.
In a free market, why would anyone tolerate racism? If they do, would it be safe to assume they are doing so voluntarily?
No you were not strawmanning me because “having stupid ideas about people based on race” is by definition racism.
racism : “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.”
It is racism.
That’s not racism, but crime. Granted, there’s another definition
“a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”
the bolded part is the rights-violation part, but even if going by this definition, rights-violation are a ‘usual’ part of racism, but not a necessary part.
Me too.
yes. and?
Juan,
I cant get over the fact that you have moral objections to other people being stupid. whether or not they are rights violators.
Your moral objection to their stupidity arises at the point where you can confidently classify their stupid ideas as similar to the stupid ideas held by other people who did violate rights and propounded those stupid ideas as the justification for so doing.
What if the reason for racism, sexism, or xenophobia is ones subjective preference?
Well, I can’t get over the fact that you seem to pretend that there’s no such thing as collectivism - or that it’s just an ‘stupid idea’ - you can’t be that naive.
And you are sort-of strawmanning now. I’m not objecting to stupidity per se - I’m objecting to a particular set of stupid ideas.
Of course I’m not saying that people who only have racist ideas are no different than criminals who actually put their ideas in practice. I have really strong objections to the latter, but that doesn’t mean I have any moral sympathy for the former.
I’m not sure if that’s an assertion or a comment or something else ? Can you rephrase it ?
I would ask them why they have it?
Thats not quite picketing, but what if the responded by saying it was for their profit delight? Or psychological delight? Or my spiritual delight?
Its their subjective preference right?