View Single Post
Old 01-09-2012, 06:23 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: LOL

Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
As to your libertarian argument, you are correct that some libertarians hold those views.
The very mention of race, religion, gender or age in law is per se discrimination. So, when liberals say they favor "anti-discrimination" they mean to say that they favor pro-discriminatory legislation that leads to less-discriminatory outcomes.
No, this is wrong. The laws in question are racially neutral. (We are talking about anti-discrimination laws, not Affirmative Action.) The argument against them is that we don't generally legislate why people can be fired or not hired. Generally, employers can be totally arbitrary, so in singling out a few reasons that people cannot be fired/not hired we are moving away from this general principle. Plus, it gives a basis to sue.

We see this line of reasoning in much of the legislation they propose. A flat tax would treat everyone equally, but equal treatment wouldn't be fair. In other words, they favor social engineering and to some extent I agree with them. I think we all know why.
Technically, a flat tax wouldn't treat everyone equally. People who make more would still pay more. But I don't have much problem defending the idea that that's fair and that it's similarly fair to tax income above various amounts at higher rates.

On the whole, I don't find it conclusively persuasive, but I think there's some merit to the argument. I believe Ron Paul thinks along these lines.
I don't think you need to make it so complicated. Ron Paul seems pretty comfortable asserting that he doesn't think freedom of contract should be interfered with. It seems a classically libertarian position. (Which, obviously, does not mean that every libertarian shares it.) It's not especially different in principle from the "liberalism" expressed by the activist SC in the early part of the 20th c which led to laws about working conditions (minimum wage, maximum hours, age) getting struck down.

IMO, Paul's problem isn't that he was against the Civil Rights Act, although I disagree with him and his rationale. I disagree with libertarians who take that position, but it seems to me not a racist position, just an unrealistic one that demonstrates different priorities than I like in a candidate. (I think this is what Glenn Loury was saying in saying the position deserved to be taken seriously, even when he went on to disagree with it.) It's that he tried to use that position and his agreement about the federal gov't, states rights, so on, to attract support from awful people and hasn't stood up and acknowledged it or said it was wrong.

Too bad, since it's hard not to like the guy somewhat.
Reply With Quote