Originally Posted by sugarkang
Good luck to Josh and condolences to Glenn. The grim nature of the introduction makes it difficult to discuss the topic at hand. But if the heads can do it, commenters should be able to do it as well.
Josh's point about corrupting power is precisely right. Josh and Glenn both agree that libertarian arguments should be taken seriously and not dismissed casually as they've been on this board, amongst political pundits, and in newspapers and TV shows across the nation.
So where was the discussion? It most certainly didn't happen in the diavlog. Maybe our beloved heads ran out of time, so I'll ask some questions that I think should be part of the serious discussion.
1. Do racists have a right to prefer certain groups of people to associate with in their private lives?
2. Do racists have the freedom to speak or write freely about these preferences?
3. If racists do not have these rights, then why not add an amendment to the Marriage Act prohibiting persons of the same race to marry and procreate? If racism is the great evil that must be eradicated in our time, then why not use state power to enforce miscegenation?
4. If there is a greater racist government policy than the War on Drugs which systematically imprisons the most marginalized blacks at three times the rate of whites, then what is it? And if there isn't, then what gives Progressives the audacity to opine on matters of racism when a supposed racist is the one trying to abolish such policy?
5. Does Martin Luther King, Jr.'s espousal of Marxist socialist doctrine preclude him from being recognized as our great leader of the civil rights movement particularly during the time when socialism was an extant threat? If MLK hadn't been assassinated, would his socialist stances preclude him from running for the presidency?
6. If Milton Friedman wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve in 2006, what makes this idea crank? Are we now redefining what it means to be a crank? If MLK can be a legitimate candidate for presidency, what makes Ron Paul disqualifying?
If you want serious libertarian discussion, what's the point in having one left and one very left academic about views that they have no vested interest in advocating? At least bring Eugene Volokh or Glenn Greenwald or Brink Lindsey or Tyler Cowen in to be one of the heads.
I think Badhat answered these questions well.
I thought they discussed libertarianism, but I think their arguments against it were not very good. The idea that roads wouldn't be built or education wouldn't happen if the federal government wasn't in charge of them is ridiculous. In fact, federal control of education is contributing to an education system which, in its incompetence, is literally destroying people's lives, IMO.
Also, I disagree that workplace sexual harassment laws are a 'liberty issue' as Josh says they are. Those laws aren't needed beyond laws that already exist that prevent someone from following a woman around in the mall telling her what a nice ass she has. Why not strengthen penalties against harassment in the mall, workplace, street, --wherever and when a someone harasses a woman at work, they risk stiff penalties. The company she's working for has nothing to do with it, it's between her and the person harassing her, and while that person should be punished, she shouldn't be able to make money off of it any more then the woman in the mall can. If she can't prove it, or if she's afraid of getting fired over it, then she can get another job. She doesn't have a 'right' to any particular job.
When I was a young man I worked in a fabrication shop that had nude girlie centerfolds, in chronological order, on the walls, near the ceiling, all the way around. The tradition was started when such posters were in black and white and had continued to that day. I found them to be of great historical interest. Shortly thereafter, the company hired a young 'hot' female accountant who worked in the office where there were no such pinups. The path to the cafeteria was perhaps 20 steps longer then if she took a short cut through the fab shop. Guess what she did? She would walk through the fab shop anyway fully cognizant of the inevitable attention her hotness demanded. The men behaved themselves well, but soon she demanded the posters be taken down. When management refused to make the men take the posters down, she got a lawyer. The posters were removed. Another event forming my political mindset.