Permanently Deleted
Whenever libertarians bring up rights and freedoms, and curtailing government regulations, it always has an unspoken “so that I can assert my power as a rich, white male and I can own people.”
Libertarians say things like “government shouldn’t have a say in the market”
“Age of consent laws need to be repealed”
“The Civil Rights act should be repealed”
“Government oversight bodies shouldn’t infringe on citizens rights”
“There shouldn’t be regulations on business”
As a former libertarian, these are unfortunately very standard libertarian positions that you’ll see many right-libertarians perform mental gymnastics to defend. Title II and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 obstructing the ability of private property owners to discriminate against customers and employees are enough for many libertarians to call for repealing the Civil Rights Act outright. Defense of private property rights are always taken to the limit, regardless of the consequences. This is illustrated by libertarianism’s most prominent thinkers.
Libertarian icon and economist Murray Rothbard called for the elimination of “the entire ‘civil rights’ structure” stating that it “tramples on the property rights of every American”. Rothbard also advocated overturning the Brown v. Board of Education decision on the grounds that state-mandated integration of schools violated libertarian principles.
Ayn Rand on the Civil Rights Act:
The “civil rights” bill, now under consideration in Congress, is another example of a gross infringement of individual rights… It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments… Needless to say, if that “civil rights” bill is passed, it will be the worst breach of property rights in the sorry record of American history in respect to that subject. It is an ironic demonstration of the philosophical insanity and the consequently suicidal trend of our age, that the men who need the protection of individual rights most urgently — the Negroes — are now in the vanguard of the destruction of these rights.
According to Jeffrey Miron, libertarian economist at Harvard and Director of Undergraduate Studies of the Economics Department:
[L]ibertarians should not only oppose Title II [of the Civil Rights Act]; they should shout that opposition from the highest roof tops…Title II is a bald-faced assault on a principle that libertarians hold dear: that private property is private.
Milton Friedman shares the typical libertarian stance and libertarian rhetoric on anti-discrimination laws:
But in a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for me to seek to persuade them that their tastes are bad and that they should change their views and their behavior, not to use coercive power to enforce my tastes and my attitudes on others.
Libertarian economist Walter Block on the Civil Rights Act and anti-discrimination laws:
But all Senator Paul was saying is that while it would be illicit for government to discriminate on the basis of race or sex or any other such criterion, it is a basic element of private-property rights that individuals be free to engage in exactly such preferences. If they were not, an important element of liberty would be lost. It is clear that discrimination on the part of individuals, but of course not the state, is part of our birthright of liberty. If not, coercive bisexuality would be the logical implication of the antidiscrimination movement.
If not, coercive bisexuality would be the logical implication of the antidiscrimination movement.
Lmao holy shit, this take is melting my brain. Libertarians are fucking wild.
Some of Walter Block’s greatest hits:
contract, predicated on private property [can] reach to the furthest realms of human interaction, even to voluntary slave contracts.
Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc.
Further, there can be no such thing as “involuntary intercourse” for the female slave whose owner is a pimp. In her slave contract, she has already agreed to alienate her body for such sexual services. Yes, it is indeed, and only, rape if her owner does not consent to this sexual intercourse. And, if the woman in question objects, which she has no right to do, ask her if she really wishes she had not made the contract in the first place, and instead allowed her child to die.
Suppose that there is a starvation situation, and the parent of the four year old child (who is not an adult) does not have enough money to keep him alive. A wealthy NAMBLA man offers this parent enough money to keep him and his family alive – if he will consent to his having sex with the child. We assume, further, that this is the only way to preserve the life of this four year old boy. Would it be criminal child abuse for the parent to accept this offer? Not on libertarian grounds. For surely it is better for the child to be a live victim of sexual abuse rather than unsullied and dead. Rather, it is the parent who consents to the death of his child, when he could have kept him alive by such extreme measures, who is the real abuser.
In a question-and-answer session, Block was asked to elaborate on his assertion that the wage disparity between blacks and whites was due to blacks being less productive than whites. In his response, Block said the "politically correct answer is that lower black productivity is due to slavery, Jim Crow legislation, poor treatment of African Americans in terms of schooling, etc. The politically incorrect explanation was supplied by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in their book The Bell Curve: lower black IQs.”
Walter Block is embarrassingly popular among libertarians. He’s one of the most prominent Austrian economists and anarcho-capitalists.
Libertarianism vs Authoritarianism is a meaningless concept Exhibit A
We should take all libertarians and give them their own state to see how it works out for them. No outside contact ofc because that’d be government and government bad.
That sort of already happened. They were crushed by the almighty :hexbear-retro:
They’d schism in 3 months over whether or not Bitcoin is good because it’s stateless or bad because it’s not backed by gold
Sure, they’re solutions. Final solutions.
