What's the Libertarian view on ?

A libertarian doesn't necessarily advocate discrimination or segregation, though it should be pointed out that humans discriminate and segregate all of the time. Regardless, I assume you're merely talking about racial issues, and in that context a libertarian doesn't "advocate" discrimination or segregation, but merely does not respond to these issues with coercion. As I said before, it comes down to property rights. On your property a libertarian believes you can discriminate and segregate as you please, whether or not we agree with your doing so.

I don't like that idea of segregation or discrimination being ok.


Whether segregation or discrimination is "ok" isn't the right question. The question more accurately is "Is it the function of government to mandate how a private entity uses or administers their private property?" Recognizing the legal rights of individuals is very different then approving of discrimination.

I can think that a Deli owner who refuses service to a black person is a complete asshole (in other words discrimination is not "OK"), but recognize that as the owner of a private enterprise he should have the right to refuse service as he see's fit.



>>>>

I disapprove of business being allowed to discriminate in a public sector. :dunno:

But I appreciate the candor of the libertarians wiling to talk about it.
 
I don't like that idea of segregation or discrimination being ok.


Whether segregation or discrimination is "ok" isn't the right question. The question more accurately is "Is it the function of government to mandate how a private entity uses or administers their private property?" Recognizing the legal rights of individuals is very different then approving of discrimination.

I can think that a Deli owner who refuses service to a black person is a complete asshole (in other words discrimination is not "OK"), but recognize that as the owner of a private enterprise he should have the right to refuse service as he see's fit.



>>>>

I disapprove of business being allowed to discriminate in a public sector. :dunno:

But I appreciate the candor of the libertarians wiling to talk about it.

The lunch counter discrimination of the past was always accompanied by government enabling of that discrimination. Therefore, no real competition against discrimination was possible in the Jim Crow environment. Not if you didn't want to find yourself swinging from a tree, with the sheriff likely to be somewhere in the hooded crowd posing for the group photo around your dangling feet.

In a truly free society, if some bigot started a Whites Only lunch counter, another business owner would be able to start a desegregated lunch counter right next door and may the best business model win.

Sounds pretty good, right?

But predicting the outcome of that kind of freedom is in the realm of philosophy. A dream that may or may not be reality.

For instance, I think if real estate agents were able to discriminate, white people who believe they are not racist would still buy houses in the Whites Only parts of town just because we all feel a little more comfortable around our own kind. I saw this in the military. Black people would sit with other black people for lunch, and whites would sit with whites, and hispanics would sit with hispanics. There was a little mixing here and there, but culture is a powerful thing.

So white people would buy houses from the discriminatory real estate agents. They'd feel bad about it, but they would still do it.

A lunch counter? Most white people really don't care if we sit next to a black person for lunch and so we would have no problem going to a desegregated restaurant. But when it comes to where we live 24/7/365, we might start bending our principles just enough that hardcore discrimination begins to take root again, little by little.

But again, this is just philosophy. I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Whether segregation or discrimination is "ok" isn't the right question. The question more accurately is "Is it the function of government to mandate how a private entity uses or administers their private property?" Recognizing the legal rights of individuals is very different then approving of discrimination.

I can think that a Deli owner who refuses service to a black person is a complete asshole (in other words discrimination is not "OK"), but recognize that as the owner of a private enterprise he should have the right to refuse service as he see's fit.



>>>>

I disapprove of business being allowed to discriminate in a public sector. :dunno:

But I appreciate the candor of the libertarians wiling to talk about it.

The lunch counter discrimination of the past was always accompanied by government enabling of that discrimination. Therefore, no real competition against discrimination was possible.

In a truly free society, if some bigot started a Whites Only lunch counter, another business owner would be able to start a desegregated lunch counter right next door and may the best business model win.

Sounds pretty good, right?

But predicting the outcome of that kind of freedom is in the realm of philosophy. A dream that may or may not be reality.

For instance, I think if real estate agents were able to discriminate, white people who believe they are not racist would still buy houses in the Whites Only parts of town just because we all feel a little more comfortable around our own kind. I saw this in the military. Black people would sit with other black people for lunch, and whites would sit with whites, and hispanics would sit with hispanics. There was a little mixing here and there, but culture is a powerful thing.

They'd feel bad about it, but they would still do it.

A lunch counter? Most of us really don't care if we sit next to a black person for lunch and so we would have no problem going to a desegregated restaurant. But when it comes to where we live 24/7/365, we might start bending our principles just enough that hardcore discrimination begins to take root again, little by little.

If people are openly and legally allowed to discriminate they will, as you pointed out white people would choose white neighborhoods.

We do know with the chik fil a fast food shop that people who do not support gay marriage flocked to support the food chain as a sort of political statement, however if they were also allowed to legally refuse service to persons because of being gay that would effect people who are gay.

imo it is not right to do that in a public sector.

I do get your point and again thank you for your honesty about it.

I just don't agree with that.
 
I disapprove of business being allowed to discriminate in a public sector. :dunno:

But I appreciate the candor of the libertarians wiling to talk about it.

The lunch counter discrimination of the past was always accompanied by government enabling of that discrimination. Therefore, no real competition against discrimination was possible.

In a truly free society, if some bigot started a Whites Only lunch counter, another business owner would be able to start a desegregated lunch counter right next door and may the best business model win.

Sounds pretty good, right?

But predicting the outcome of that kind of freedom is in the realm of philosophy. A dream that may or may not be reality.

For instance, I think if real estate agents were able to discriminate, white people who believe they are not racist would still buy houses in the Whites Only parts of town just because we all feel a little more comfortable around our own kind. I saw this in the military. Black people would sit with other black people for lunch, and whites would sit with whites, and hispanics would sit with hispanics. There was a little mixing here and there, but culture is a powerful thing.

They'd feel bad about it, but they would still do it.

A lunch counter? Most of us really don't care if we sit next to a black person for lunch and so we would have no problem going to a desegregated restaurant. But when it comes to where we live 24/7/365, we might start bending our principles just enough that hardcore discrimination begins to take root again, little by little.

If people are openly and legally allowed to discriminate they will, as you pointed out white people would choose white neighborhoods.

We do know with the chik fil a fast food shop that people who do not support gay marriage flocked to support the food chain as a sort of political statement, however if they were also allowed to legally refuse service to persons because of being gay that would effect people who are gay.

imo it is not right to do that in a public sector.

I do get your point and again thank you for your honesty about it.

I just don't agree with that.

Well, that's what politics is. It's all about choosing the philosophy which you believe most accurately predicts their desired outcome their system would create. If you like the vision of the world they desire, and believe their system would achieve it, then that is who you run with.
 
Last edited:
I don't like that idea of segregation or discrimination being ok.


Whether segregation or discrimination is "ok" isn't the right question. The question more accurately is "Is it the function of government to mandate how a private entity uses or administers their private property?" Recognizing the legal rights of individuals is very different then approving of discrimination.

I can think that a Deli owner who refuses service to a black person is a complete asshole (in other words discrimination is not "OK"), but recognize that as the owner of a private enterprise he should have the right to refuse service as he see's fit.



>>>>

I disapprove of business being allowed to discriminate in a public sector. :dunno:

But I appreciate the candor of the libertarians wiling to talk about it.


When we talk about public sector jobs v. private sector jobs, public sector refers to government jobs. Absolutely discrimination and segregation should not be legal for government entities. The citizens of this nation are the employers and should not be discriminated against by the government unless there is a compelling government interest.


>>>>
 
I disapprove of business being allowed to discriminate in a public sector. :dunno:

But I appreciate the candor of the libertarians wiling to talk about it.

The lunch counter discrimination of the past was always accompanied by government enabling of that discrimination. Therefore, no real competition against discrimination was possible.

In a truly free society, if some bigot started a Whites Only lunch counter, another business owner would be able to start a desegregated lunch counter right next door and may the best business model win.

Sounds pretty good, right?

But predicting the outcome of that kind of freedom is in the realm of philosophy. A dream that may or may not be reality.

For instance, I think if real estate agents were able to discriminate, white people who believe they are not racist would still buy houses in the Whites Only parts of town just because we all feel a little more comfortable around our own kind. I saw this in the military. Black people would sit with other black people for lunch, and whites would sit with whites, and hispanics would sit with hispanics. There was a little mixing here and there, but culture is a powerful thing.

They'd feel bad about it, but they would still do it.

A lunch counter? Most of us really don't care if we sit next to a black person for lunch and so we would have no problem going to a desegregated restaurant. But when it comes to where we live 24/7/365, we might start bending our principles just enough that hardcore discrimination begins to take root again, little by little.

If people are openly and legally allowed to discriminate they will, as you pointed out white people would choose white neighborhoods.

We do know with the chik fil a fast food shop that people who do not support gay marriage flocked to support the food chain as a sort of political statemen[B][/B]t, however if they were also allowed to legally refuse service to persons because of being gay that would effect people who are gay.

imo it is not right to do that in a public sector.

I do get your point and again thank you for your honesty about it.

I just don't agree with that.


In the vast majority of states Chick-fil-A can refuse service because someone is gay. They can't because a person is black, can't because a person is Muslim, can't because a person is a woman - but they can if the reason is they think the person is a homosexual.



Just say'n.



>>>>
 
In what situations do you advocate discrimination and segregation?

Should religions be allowed to have arranged marriage for their children.

Polygamists allowed to marry young brides.

Children denied medicine or vaccinations because it is against their parents religious beliefs?

A libertarian doesn't necessarily advocate discrimination or segregation, though it should be pointed out that humans discriminate and segregate all of the time. Regardless, I assume you're merely talking about racial issues, and in that context a libertarian doesn't "advocate" discrimination or segregation, but merely does not respond to these issues with coercion. As I said before, it comes down to property rights. On your property a libertarian believes you can discriminate and segregate as you please, whether or not we agree with your doing so.

I don't like that idea of segregation or discrimination being ok.

But you discriminate all the time. There are simply certain people you have no desire to associate with in any capacity whatsoever for one reason or another. As such you wouldn't allow these people onto your property. The only difference here is that you're specifically talking about discrimination or segregation based on race. So what you're really saying is that you want to outlaw discrimination when it's based on reasons you personally disagree with. So because you disagree with their reasons you want to use the violence of the state to force them to use their own property in a way that is against their inclinations. The libertarian simply says that people should be free to discriminate or segregate on their own property for whatever reason if that's what they want to do.

It should be noted that no libertarian supports centralized government discrimination or segregation.

Also, please note that when I say "you discriminate all the time," or "you want to use the violence of the state" I'm not trying to personally attack you. Merely telling you how a libertarian views your argument.
 
A libertarian doesn't necessarily advocate discrimination or segregation, though it should be pointed out that humans discriminate and segregate all of the time. Regardless, I assume you're merely talking about racial issues, and in that context a libertarian doesn't "advocate" discrimination or segregation, but merely does not respond to these issues with coercion. As I said before, it comes down to property rights. On your property a libertarian believes you can discriminate and segregate as you please, whether or not we agree with your doing so.

I don't like that idea of segregation or discrimination being ok.


Whether segregation or discrimination is "ok" isn't the right question. The question more accurately is "Is it the function of government to mandate how a private entity uses or administers their private property?" Recognizing the legal rights of individuals is very different then approving of discrimination.

I can think that a Deli owner who refuses service to a black person is a complete asshole (in other words discrimination is not "OK"), but recognize that as the owner of a private enterprise he should have the right to refuse service as he see's fit.



>>>>

And that you would conversely have the right to refuse your business to said deli owner.
 
But you discriminate all the time. There are simply certain people you have no desire to associate with in any capacity whatsoever for one reason or another. As such you wouldn't allow these people onto your property. The only difference here is that you're specifically talking about discrimination or segregation based on race. So what you're really saying is that you want to outlaw discrimination when it's based on reasons you personally disagree with. So because you disagree with their reasons you want to use the violence of the state to force them to use their own property in a way that is against their inclinations. The libertarian simply says that people should be free to discriminate or segregate on their own property for whatever reason if that's what they want to do.

It should be noted that no libertarian supports centralized government discrimination or segregation.

Also, please note that when I say "you discriminate all the time," or "you want to use the violence of the state" I'm not trying to personally attack you. Merely telling you how a libertarian views your argument.


That's very true. Say a Muslim dry cleaner refuses to clean the clothes of Jewish person . A large portion of the population might agree that it should be against the law because they feel there shouldn't be discrimination based on religion and thinks the government is warranted in forcing non-discrimination. On the other hand have a photographer refuse to photograph the wedding of a same-sex couple. However there is outrage when the same law (Public Accommodation) is applied where it specifically includes sexual orientation.

Same law, same application. Both are the government defining who a private business must service.

Watch what you ask for in terms of government enforcement and if so, don't be surprised if such enforcement happens in the future for something you disagree with.



>>>>
 
I disapprove of business being allowed to discriminate in a public sector.

So, we've been answering your questions, maybe you can return the favor. What the heck is a "public sector"? Do you just mean society?

EDIT: To clarify, I've always understood "public sector" to mean government - but I've seen it used with a seemingly different meaning. Are you simply agreeing with us, that discrimination should not be allowed in our governance? Or are you referring to something else?
 
Last edited:
I disapprove of business being allowed to discriminate in a public sector.

So, we've been answering your questions, maybe you can return the favor. What the heck is a "public sector"? Do you just mean society?

EDIT: To clarify, I've always understood "public sector" to mean government - but I've seen it used with a seemingly different meaning. Are you simply agreeing with us, that discrimination should not be allowed in our governance? Or are you referring to something else?

I will try explain where I don't agree with it, by giving an example of it. You can choose the label you find fitting.

So the self proclaimed libertarian friend who I have referred to is a friend offline not on a messageboard.

Here is an example: He believes that women should not be in the work force, if he had his way he would never hire a woman and would encourage anyone he did business with not to hire women. ( how he would encourage is, networking, if someone did business with women or employed them he would cut off doing business with them and he would get others to do the same )

He has stated that women are inferior, his premise is that men can do everything a woman can and more, he gave lengthy examples as to why he believes it.

Now to me, every human being has a right to purchase from anyone who is selling a product in public.

If you are open for business you are open for everyones business.

Now in your own private home (private property) do what you want.

To me as humans our private life is just that private but our public interactions have some ground rules so as to not separate each other into an unequal category.

:dunno:
 
I disapprove of business being allowed to discriminate in a public sector.

So, we've been answering your questions, maybe you can return the favor. What the heck is a "public sector"? Do you just mean society?

EDIT: To clarify, I've always understood "public sector" to mean government - but I've seen it used with a seemingly different meaning. Are you simply agreeing with us, that discrimination should not be allowed in our governance? Or are you referring to something else?

I will try explain where I don't agree with it, by giving an example of it. You can choose the label you find fitting.

So the self proclaimed libertarian friend who I have referred to is a friend offline not on a messageboard.

Here is an example: He believes that women should not be in the work force, if he had his way he would never hire a woman and would encourage anyone he did business with not to hire women. ( how he would encourage is, networking, if someone did business with women or employed them he would cut off doing business with them and he would get others to do the same )

He has stated that women are inferior, his premise is that men can do everything a woman can and more, he gave lengthy examples as to why he believes it.

Now to me, every human being has a right to purchase from anyone who is selling a product in public.

If you are open for business you are open for everyones business.

Now in your own private home (private property) do what you want.

To me as humans our private life is just that private but our public interactions have some ground rules so as to not separate each other into an unequal category.

:dunno:

It's the strange libertarian who sees people based on gender, rather than as individuals, but it's unimportant what this friend calls himself.

You say in your own private home, which you acknowledge is private property, one can do what they want. However, if I own my store is that not also private property? Does being "open for business" somehow mean that I have less property rights in my store than I do my home? And what about a garage sale? That's my home, but I'm also "open for business."
 
animal cruelty, burn , torture or maim an animal

Against.



Against.



For, for, for, for.



Depends.



Depends.



No.:rolleyes:

Are there any social boundaries that Libertarians advocate if so what are they?

Yes, as soon as you violate the rights of someone else.

In what situations do you advocate discrimination and segregation?

I don't advocate descrimination or segregation. That wasn't your question.

Should religions be allowed to have arranged marriage for their children.

Yes.

Polygamists allowed to marry young brides.

What?

Children denied medicine or vaccinations because it is against their parents religious beliefs?

To a point. There is already an existing law that allows doctors to get a court order to treat. I'm fine with that.
 
animal cruelty, burn , torture or maim an animal

What kind of sicko does that? Against.

child porn, any sexual or physical violent acts on a child

This libertarian supports no law restricting consensual activity between adults. A child cannot consent. Against.

religious freedom :polygamy, prayer over medicine, drugs as part of a religious enlightenment ritual

Support. Again, if it's consenting adults, it's nobody else's business.

segregation

Against on public property. If a private property owner wants to segregate men and women into different restrooms, that's his choice. If you don't like it, leave his property.

discrimination

Depends what you mean. Should smokers pay a higher health insurance premium? I say that's reasonable. That's also discriminating against smokers. Discrimination of public employees based on race, sex, etc,...that's wrong. Private employers should be able to hire whomever they like.

Do libertarians believe it should all be legal?

Not sure what you mean by "all", but a good litmus test for me would be this: If a man's actions do not involve hurting, inconveniencing, or restricting the rights of others, nor has he taken what doesn't belong to him, the activity should not be illegal.

Are there any social boundaries that Libertarians advocate if so what are they?

Social boundaries sounds like a personal issue. Government should focus on keeping the people free while restricting/prosecuting those that would impinge on the rights of others.
 
animal cruelty, burn , torture or maim an animal

What kind of sicko does that? Against.

child porn, any sexual or physical violent acts on a child

This libertarian supports no law restricting consensual activity between adults. A child cannot consent. Against.



Support. Again, if it's consenting adults, it's nobody else's business.



Against on public property. If a private property owner wants to segregate men and women into different restrooms, that's his choice. If you don't like it, leave his property.



Depends what you mean. Should smokers pay a higher health insurance premium? I say that's reasonable. That's also discriminating against smokers. Discrimination of public employees based on race, sex, etc,...that's wrong. Private employers should be able to hire whomever they like.

Do libertarians believe it should all be legal?

Not sure what you mean by "all", but a good litmus test for me would be this: If a man's actions do not involve hurting, inconveniencing, or restricting the rights of others, nor has he taken what doesn't belong to him, the activity should not be illegal.

Are there any social boundaries that Libertarians advocate if so what are they?

Social boundaries sounds like a personal issue. Government should focus on keeping the people free while restricting/prosecuting those that would impinge on the rights of others.

animal cruelty, burn , torture or maim an animal

child porn, any sexual or physical violent acts on a child

religious freedom :polygamy, prayer over medicine, drugs as part of a religious enlightenment ritual

segregation

discrimination

Do libertarians believe it should all be legal? (all of the above)

Are there any social boundaries that Libertarians advocate if so what are they?

So what do you consider public property ?
 
animal cruelty, burn , torture or maim an animal

What kind of sicko does that? Against.



This libertarian supports no law restricting consensual activity between adults. A child cannot consent. Against.



Support. Again, if it's consenting adults, it's nobody else's business.



Against on public property. If a private property owner wants to segregate men and women into different restrooms, that's his choice. If you don't like it, leave his property.



Depends what you mean. Should smokers pay a higher health insurance premium? I say that's reasonable. That's also discriminating against smokers. Discrimination of public employees based on race, sex, etc,...that's wrong. Private employers should be able to hire whomever they like.



Not sure what you mean by "all", but a good litmus test for me would be this: If a man's actions do not involve hurting, inconveniencing, or restricting the rights of others, nor has he taken what doesn't belong to him, the activity should not be illegal.



Social boundaries sounds like a personal issue. Government should focus on keeping the people free while restricting/prosecuting those that would impinge on the rights of others.

animal cruelty, burn , torture or maim an animal

child porn, any sexual or physical violent acts on a child

religious freedom :polygamy, prayer over medicine, drugs as part of a religious enlightenment ritual

segregation

discrimination

Do libertarians believe it should all be legal? (all of the above)

Are there any social boundaries that Libertarians advocate if so what are they?

So what do you consider public property ?

Property owned by a government. Public parks, government buildings, military bases, etc.
 
So, we've been answering your questions, maybe you can return the favor. What the heck is a "public sector"? Do you just mean society?

EDIT: To clarify, I've always understood "public sector" to mean government - but I've seen it used with a seemingly different meaning. Are you simply agreeing with us, that discrimination should not be allowed in our governance? Or are you referring to something else?

I will try explain where I don't agree with it, by giving an example of it. You can choose the label you find fitting.

So the self proclaimed libertarian friend who I have referred to is a friend offline not on a messageboard.

Here is an example: He believes that women should not be in the work force, if he had his way he would never hire a woman and would encourage anyone he did business with not to hire women. ( how he would encourage is, networking, if someone did business with women or employed them he would cut off doing business with them and he would get others to do the same )

He has stated that women are inferior, his premise is that men can do everything a woman can and more, he gave lengthy examples as to why he believes it.

Now to me, every human being has a right to purchase from anyone who is selling a product in public.

If you are open for business you are open for everyones business.

Now in your own private home (private property) do what you want.

To me as humans our private life is just that private but our public interactions have some ground rules so as to not separate each other into an unequal category.

:dunno:

It's the strange libertarian who sees people based on gender, rather than as individuals, but it's unimportant what this friend calls himself.

You say in your own private home, which you acknowledge is private property, one can do what they want. However, if I own my store is that not also private property? Does being "open for business" somehow mean that I have less property rights in my store than I do my home? And what about a garage sale? That's my home, but I'm also "open for business."

If you are open for public business should all humans be legally allowed to purchase your product or should you be legally allowed to not sell your product to certain human beings ?

private property in my opinion is used for private life, owning property that is intended for a public business should serve all humans.

My friend is a douche when it comes to women, however he firmly believes that living in a libertarian society would give him the freedom to exclude women in the workforce.

I see it as taking away a freedom. :dunno:
 
My friend is a douche when it comes to women, however he firmly believes that living in a libertarian society would give him the freedom to exclude women in the workforce.

Only government could exclude anyone from the workforce. Your friend is not a libertarian. Now, if he doesn't want to hire women in his jock strap testing business, that should be his right. The business is his private property.
 
Against.



Against.



For, for, for, for.



Depends.



Depends.



No.:rolleyes:



Yes, as soon as you violate the rights of someone else.

In what situations do you advocate discrimination and segregation?

I don't advocate descrimination or segregation. That wasn't your question.



Yes.

Polygamists allowed to marry young brides.

What?

Children denied medicine or vaccinations because it is against their parents religious beliefs?

To a point. There is already an existing law that allows doctors to get a court order to treat. I'm fine with that.

Thanks, just for clarification, I may be prompted to ask a new question or rephrase a questuon in a different way.

The intention behind it is so I don't assume something without asking for clarification on some reply I may have misunderstood.
 
So, we've been answering your questions, maybe you can return the favor. What the heck is a "public sector"? Do you just mean society?

EDIT: To clarify, I've always understood "public sector" to mean government - but I've seen it used with a seemingly different meaning. Are you simply agreeing with us, that discrimination should not be allowed in our governance? Or are you referring to something else?

I will try explain where I don't agree with it, by giving an example of it. You can choose the label you find fitting.

So the self proclaimed libertarian friend who I have referred to is a friend offline not on a messageboard.

Here is an example: He believes that women should not be in the work force, if he had his way he would never hire a woman and would encourage anyone he did business with not to hire women. ( how he would encourage is, networking, if someone did business with women or employed them he would cut off doing business with them and he would get others to do the same )

He has stated that women are inferior, his premise is that men can do everything a woman can and more, he gave lengthy examples as to why he believes it.

Now to me, every human being has a right to purchase from anyone who is selling a product in public.

If you are open for business you are open for everyones business.

Now in your own private home (private property) do what you want.

To me as humans our private life is just that private but our public interactions have some ground rules so as to not separate each other into an unequal category.

:dunno:

It's the strange libertarian who sees people based on gender, rather than as individuals, but it's unimportant what this friend calls himself.

You say in your own private home, which you acknowledge is private property, one can do what they want. However, if I own my store is that not also private property? Does being "open for business" somehow mean that I have less property rights in my store than I do my home? And what about a garage sale? That's my home, but I'm also "open for business."

If you are opening up for a free market all humans should have a right to buy from you.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top