Trying to explain support for civil liberties and freedom to SJW's
reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/30xl2u/parks_an...
reddit.comPosted Apr 1, 2015, 3:19 PM UTC
561
reddit.comAs I explained yesterday in a thread on this, I think libertarians don't think deeply enough about the consequences of what they are asking for.
The law treats public accommodations as a tacit invitation. That means that when I walk into your store, I am there with your consent. If you didn't want that to happen, you can make your store membership-only, like a social club, where you literally screen every person in advance and require some sort of membership fee or something. Non-discrimination laws don't apply in that situation.
But that's not the case here. So what happens next, conceptually? I'm in your store, and neither of us has any objection to me being there. You're happy I'm there. Then you found out I'm gay. You ask me to leave, and I don't want to.
What you seem to want, at this point, is for the state to come in and use its force to physically coerce me into moving off a piece of property. I did absolutely nothing to warrant this violence. I haven't done anything wrong, I'm in a place I was invited. Now, most of the time, we might side with the store owner. Usually you get to decide who gets to be on your property; that's part of property rights. But we've also decided that invitees also have rights. And some of those rights included non-molestation by the state unless there's a good reason for it.
What you're asking is that the state recognize "being gay" as a good enough reason to use force against me at your request. You want some form of property rights to be more important than the rights of all people to be free from state violence for no other reason than being gay (or black, or Jewish, or any other number of protected classes).
11
I haven't done anything wrong, I'm in a place I was invited.
In your hypothetical, are you asserting that invites are irrevocable? Assuming they're not, you're now engaged in trespass.. which could reasonably be said to be "doing something wrong".
3
Not at all. What I am asserting is that if you are appealing to a third party (i.e. the state) to enforce your desire to have someone leave your premises, that third party should be able to make a decision about on what basis they want to get involved.
So yes, it could be a considered trespass. So you, the property owner, says "hey, Mr. State - use violence against this man to remove him because he is trespassing!"
Me, the patron, would say "hey, Mr. State - I don't deserve to be violently removed from an area simply because I am gay".
The state has to make a choice, doesn't it?
4
In that case, should it be the business of the state to determine why you're being asked to leave? From the state's perspective, it may be that you "deserve" to be removed purely because you're trespassing... your orientation being irrelevant from a legal standpoint.
Furthermore, it seems that even if you're right, there is little recourse. Why can't the property owner simply say that he wants you to leave on account of the color of your shirt or the way you've styled your hair? Ultimately, it seems unworkable for the state to try to deduce the "secret intentions" behind a property owner seeking relief from trespass.
1
In that case, should it be the business of the state to determine why you're being asked to leave? From the state's perspective, it may be that you "deserve" to be removed purely because you're trespassing... your orientation being irrelevant from a legal standpoint.
It may be, sure. I guess I don't understand the question about whether the state "should" be making that determination. It's not a should question - it's just a statement of fact. The state is making that determination, whichever way it decides. People are appealing to it, it has to make a choice.
Why can't the property owner simply say that he wants you to leave on account of the color of your shirt or the way you've styled your hair? Ultimately, it seems unworkable for the state to try to deduce the "secret intentions" behind a property owner seeking relief from trespass.
This is a fair logistical point. And this is why we have courts - so people can argue facts and try to prove their case. A plaintiff will either prove their case or not to a jury of their peers. Not sure I see a better alternative.
4
The state has to make a choice, doesn't it?
It doesn't. The state shouldn't be deciding whether to enforce property rights based on the reasons of the property owner. There aren't any invalid ways to use your property, as long as you don't infringe on other's rights.
Also, as an aside, I think discrimination in all of its forms is a bad choice. Morally and (somewhat more importantly) economically. So, when a shop owner won't sell to gays, or hire blacks, he's making a terrible choice for himself. If you put the state in charge of making sure he can't make that choice, you're essentially punishing the shop owners you agree with, and, against his will, helping the shop owner you dislike.
All this is academic, though. Our state, as it exists today, should absolutely have non discrimination laws.
1
It doesn't. The state shouldn't be deciding whether to enforce property rights based on the reasons of the property owner. There aren't any invalid ways to use your property, as long as you don't infringe on other's rights.
This just seems like another way of saying "yes, the state should choose to use its force in protection of property rights".
It's a choice. It's not a law of nature.
5
First, thank you for a civil response. In the linked thread, all I get is personal attacks.
I totally get what you're saying. I think it would be incredibly rude if a store owner was to do what your scenario lays out. I also think it to be morally wrong, but where I differ is that I do not think it should be a crime. Having a shop open to the public should not mean that one must serve everyone who walks through the doors. It's still that person's shops, and they should have the choice of who they do business with, no matter how perverted their choice making process is. I'm not okay with the state effectively forcing a person to provide a service to someone they don't want to serve, under the threat of fine or imprisonment.
As long as the customer is politely asked to leave, and is not harassed or otherwise inconvenienced, it should be a legal to ask them to leave. If they do not leave in a reasonable amount of time, its textbook trespassing. The same as if a person gets too drunk at a party they were invited to, but won't leave. Sure they were invited to come in, but that doesn't give them the right to stay beyond their welcome.
I think this really comes down to what one values more. Civil liberties or civil rights, and to what balance one values each, as they can often clash with one another. I think most libertarians place a premium and emphasis on civil liberties.
2
I'm not okay with the state effectively forcing a person to provide a service to someone they don't want to serve, under the threat of fine or imprisonment.
The flip side is threatening to fine or imprison the customer, though. Isn't it? You say I'm trespassing, so you want the state to use its powers of coercion to make me leave.
The state is going to be deploying coercive powers one way or another. We're just trying to figure out who's side it should be on.
I think this really comes down to what one values more. Civil liberties or civil rights, and to what balance one values each, as they can often clash with one another. I think most libertarians place a premium and emphasis on civil liberties.
I agree with this, but I think using the words "civil liberties" and "civil rights" is a little confusing. The plain reality is that we're deciding which is more important - the right to discriminate against gay people in how you are deploying your right to property, or the right of gay people to not be discriminated against in such a fashion.
Whatever labels we affix to such values, that's really the core issue here, as far as I can tell.
5
I agree with this, but I think using the words "civil liberties" and "civil rights" is a little confusing. The plain reality is that we're deciding which is more important - the right to discriminate against gay people in how you are deploying your right to property, or the right of gay people to not be discriminated against in such a fashion.
The problem with protected class is that you're saying "this person is more important than your choice".
When you say that someone has a right to not be refused, you are also saying that that protected person has an inherent right to another person's services whether he agrees or not.
Why would someone have an inherent right to someone else's services? It's completely subjective, and is something so completely subjective really the best basis for law? It boils down to banning something because you don't like it.
Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would refuse service to someone who isn't being a cunt and is slapping cash down on my counter. I also can't imagine willfully patronizing anyone who did. But I also can't, in good conscience, believe that those choices should be against the law because I know that my preferences are just that: my preferences.
0
Why would someone have an inherent right to someone else's services? It's completely subjective, and is something so completely subjective really the best basis for law? It boils down to banning something because you don't like it.
That's one way of saying it, I suppose. Another way of saying is "had the customer not had quality X, would the owner have willingly engaged in commerce with such person"? If the answer is yes, then it seems to me that we''re not talking about a right to have someone perform a service for you. Rather, we're in a situation where the other person is willing to perform that service for you, except for the fact that you have a certain quality.
Maybe that's just another way of saying the same thing. But I think its an important angle. I would not, though, that its not subjective at all. It's an objective question - if the customer lacked quality X, would the owner be willing to serve that person. Simple question of fact; objective, not subjective.
1
Yes, made similar arguments in another thread yesterday and was downvoted to oblivion. Godspeed.
Folks have an awfully hard time separating the concepts of freedom of association and civil rights.
2
It's not working, my friend! Talk about a close-minded group! Ugh...
Keep up the good work though. Maybe you'll get through to a few.
0
Nope. Unfortunately a very closed minded group to the concept of freedom.
2
Well I made 3 posts and got myself banned for you :)
0
Haha, what got the ban?
edit: looks like I got one too. Looks like dissent is not permitted there.
0
No idea. It didn't say. Just got a message saying I was banned. I made 5 posts. You can read them. I think it's fair to say that r/atheism doesn't tolerate too much in the way of disagreement.
0†
All the law does is make it so that it is not illegal to discriminate
Well, no. The Indiana RFRA makes it so that religious beliefs can be used as a defense for discrimination in private lawsuits and lawsuits involving the state.
By cancelling, he is literally protesting people's rights to freedom.
So people in Indiana are entitled to Nick Offerman coming to their state to perform for them? What about his rights as an individual to do as he pleases?
0
Actually, I'd think the libertarian position is to oppose Indiana's RFRA. Why do religious people get a special exemption from a law that everyone else must follow? If you want to permit religious people to discriminate you ought to permit everyone to discriminate.
Laws that give special privileges are a Bad Thing.
I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree with your judgement.
If an authoritarian law is applied uniformly, it's still a authoritarian law. The state mandating who people freely associate with in their private enterprise is wrong! I don't think support of that in part or in total is libertarian.
A special exemption for some from an authoritarian law is worse than an authoritarian law applied uniformly. I don't see how you could argue otherwise from a libertarian standpoint.
False dichotomy.
In what way? This act gives some people relief from an authoritarian law.
Exactly. Scalia basically said the same thing prior to the federal RFRA mandating that things work the other way. I posted this but this subreddit didn't want to hear it: http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/317zfo/the_libertarian_stance_on_rfras_should_be_clear/
I agree with your point completely, as Ron Paul put it "More laws are the problem." The government, both federal and state level, should not tell people how to run their businesses. Period.
This doesn't matter, in practice. Indiana does not and never has had LGBT as a protected class. It's never been illegal to refuse them service. Indiana is also an at will employment state. You can be fired and no reason has to be provided.
However, is reaffirming and strengthening a right enumerated in the Constitution actually granting privilege? After all, SCOTUS weakened it by removing the compelling interest test in 1990. That's the whole reason the original Federal RFRA existed.
Could this one have been less of a clusterfuck? Of course.
Generally, agreed. In practice, that's what protected classes do. They grant special privileges to very small groups that others don't have. Essentially, it is the government saying that you can't tell them no.
And here we have the problems that happen when people believe the government grants rights. You end up with conflicting "rights".
Another problem is controlling the narrative by calling everything discrimination. Choosing the people you want to associate with should be everyone's right.
In the world we live in, where implementing a pure ideology isn't possible, it's probably a good idea to say that the practical standard should be something along the lines of "will this person die?"
Gunshot wound? Yeah, it's in the compelling governmental interest to make someone fix that shit. Someone not wanting to sell cupcakes to gays isn't going to cause those individuals physical or financial harm.
Isn't one of the tenets of libertarianism that, if there is no physical harm or financial liability, then it is a private, non governmental matter?
How is it not "privilege" when only some people can legally use peyote?
That is the libertarian position. There's just not many libertarians left in r/libertarian.
BUT, the law is more of "keep government from interfering", its not a law granting anyone more rights than another.
Anything that EXPANDS personal liberties and keeps the state from being involved in the private interactions and associations between people is good for liberty.
Advocating for any special treatment FOR other people such as gays is actually anti-liberty.
That's not how Religious Freedom laws have been used historically. They've been deemed to give religious people special exemptions from laws that others must follow. See the American Indian Religious Freedom Act as an example.
Only if applied uniformly. If only some people get expanded liberty, that's worse.