See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Whose Right Is It, Anyway?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/carden4.html
Published: Jun 30, 2009
Author: Art Carden
Post Date: 2009-06-30 06:34:22 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 170
Comments: 13
Recently, the Shelby County Commission passed an ordinance that would make it illegal for employers and firms that contract with the county to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the discussion got bogged down in questions about whether homosexuality is or is not moral. It was assumed that the government can intervene on behalf of favored groups in order to correct the perceived injustice of discrimination. The debate largely ignored the key issue, which is whether it is just, moral, and appropriate to use force to correct others' wayward beliefs. Now that the dust has settled, we can ask about this. As a consumer, I am free to indulge whatever preferences I'm willing to pay for, and if I am a bigot the objects of my ignorance have no legal claim against me. If I am biased against the race and religion of the proprietors of a local ethnic restaurant, I am free to shop elsewhere. I don't have to eat at India Palace, El Porton, or Pho Saigon, and the owners of India Palace, El Porton, and Pho Saigon do not have the option to force me to patronize their businesses. The legal right to prosecute thoughtcrime only works in one direction. Restaurants do not have the right to refuse me service if they disapprove of my race and religion. Something is amiss here. If I am a bigot, I am free to indulge my bigotry by refusing to trade my money for their goods and services. They do not have the same luxury: they cannot refuse to trade their goods and services for my money. It has been said that "hard cases make bad law," and laws against discrimination are a perfect case in point. This is an issue where pragmatism must yield to principle. In his book Fair Play, economist Steven Landsburg states this eloquently in a passage on the importance of rights, tolerance, and pluralism (p. 92): You and I disapprove of bigotry. But the private virtue of tolerance and the public virtue of pluralism require us to countenance things we do not approve. Tolerance means accepting the fact that other people's values might be very different than your own. Pluralism means eschewing the use of political power as a means for 'correcting' those values. The idea of tolerating intolerance sounds suspiciously paradoxical, but so do a lot of other good ideas – like freedom of speech for advocates of censorship. In fact, freedom of speech has a lot in common with tolerance: Neither of them means a thing unless it applies equally to those we applaud and those who offend us most viscerally. Tolerance is ennobling, which is why we should teach it to our children. Pluralism is insurance against tyranny, which is why we should demand it of our government. To speak up for even the most despised minorities is both morally right and politically prudent. $23 $20 Calling on government to purify others' hearts and minds opens Pandora's box, pushes us farther down a very slippery slope, and invites all sorts of other hackneyed clichés. I hope that people find discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, physical "handicaps," and other arbitrary criteria morally repugnant. I do. However, my disapproval of another's attitude does not give me the right to use force to correct their erroneous ways. Indeed, it may backfire. From what I have observed, the conflagration surrounding the antidiscrimination ordinance has reinforced "us versus them" mentalities around Shelby County. This also addresses another issue of crucial importance. If I give a government the power to force you to accept my values, I also give them the power to force me to accept your values at some point in the future. Another way of saying this is that any government with the power to take an atheist's money and give it to my church is also a government with the power to take my money and give it to Planned Parenthood. When we use force to restrict others' liberty, we endanger our own. Governments coerce others with a two-edged sword: giving the state the power to do things you like necessarily requires giving the state the power to do things you don't like, and giving the state the power to restrict behavior of which you don't approve gives them the power to restrict behavior of which you do approve. The right way to change hearts and minds is not coercion. It is persuasion. The originally appeared on Mises.org.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Great article, Ada.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I suggest we are ALL bigots, whether overt or covert. The overt bigot admits it, the covert bigot is a liar.
The overt bigot admits it, the covert bigot is a liar. Exactly so.
Turtle is only bigoted against those who do not worship Turtle. All bow down before Turtle.
Bigotry is acceptable in many areas and forms. For instance, it is totally acceptable for the rich to have zero tolerance for the poor, that is bigotry. Demeaning others by social status is acceptable, such as Obumski and the bitter small towners. (read poor whites)
Yes, to some degree most of us (perhaps all) are at least a little bigoted if by bigoted it is meant that we prefer, and are more comfortable, among those we perceive as "like us." People who have the same heritage and culture will probably get along better than people just thrown together for the sake of political correctness and most people who aren't afraid to admit the obvious will say so. Those who believe that you can just throw people together willy nilly from such diverse backgrounds as Japan and Mexico (for instance) and expect that they will get along just fine and all sing kumbayah around the campfire probably still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. I got an email from a friend this morning about "political correctness" and thought it was pretty good. Here is what it said: ...there is an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year's term was "Political Correctness." The winner wrote: "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." To which I replied: And that said turd can be polished until it is brighter than a diamond.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. That is exactly the term PC abhors...prefer...they do NOT want freedom of choice, so call it intolerance and bigotry. I have never met anyone that did not have a preference or intolerance. Rich people...prefer...to socialize with the rich, with disdain for the poor, but that is not bigotry???? When was the last time Gates invited you over for a drink????
I am not a bigot!!! I hate and discriminate against everybody equally!
In what century is this author living in? Some of us have been warning for decades that such freedom of association no longer exists.
Obummer has a 'special' camp for people like you. There, you'll be 'taught' the joys of diversity and how to appreciate poor, yet humble, people from cultures with a rich heritage of cooking over a hole in the ground ;-)
_________________________________________________________________________ Don't forget de stew pot!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. People who tell you they have no preference about who they associate with will most likely lie to you about other things too.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. We have a class society, based on....preference and bigotry...intertwined.
Lord Acton
#2. To: James Deffenbach (#1)
#3. To: Cynicom. all (#2)
I suggest we are ALL bigots, whether overt or covert.
#4. To: Cynicom (#2)
I suggest we are ALL bigots, whether overt or covert.
There's no place better thanTurtle Island.
#5. To: lodwick (#3)
#6. To: Cynicom (#2)
Lord Acton
#7. To: James Deffenbach (#6)
if by bigoted it is meant that we prefer,
#8. To: Cynicom (#2)
#9. To: Ada (#0)
As a consumer, I am free to indulge whatever preferences I'm willing to pay for, and if I am a bigot the objects of my ignorance have no legal claim against me.
#10. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#8)
I am not a bigot!!! I hate and discriminate against everybody equally!
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#11. To: X-15 (#10)
There, you'll be 'taught' the joys of diversity and how to appreciate poor, yet humble, people from cultures with a rich heritage of cooking over a hole in the ground ;-)
Lord Acton
#12. To: Cynicom (#7)
I have never met anyone that did not have a preference or intolerance.
Lord Acton
#13. To: James Deffenbach (#12)
People who tell you they have no preference about who they associate with will most likely lie to you about other things too.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
