Restaurant refuses service to Huckabee Sanders

[Albion]

Libertarians don't even know what it is.

Look into it. Then get back to us.

And stop naming countries whose governments are the farthest thing from libertarianism that can be found.

 

[tango]

That's false. Before we had a country we were under British rule. After British rule we were under the articles of confederation. Under those articles the nation was in economic chaos and about ready to implode. This is the reason why people got together to create a more stable government with a stronger central government. Once the union was formed there was an immediate cause to enforce and tax. This resulted in the Whiskey rebellion, which the federal government was obliged to crush. Libertarians were rebutted and the federal government grew.

Hence the observation - if the government is too small it doesn't work. If the government is too distant it doesn't work (hence the reason you overthrew British rule). The fact that a government that is too small doesn't work isn't an argument to allow government to require regular payments to preserve the right to operate a boat, or impose licensing requirements to arrange flowers or cut hair, or get involved in a dispute over whether or not a sole proprietor must oblige every customer however distasteful he finds their request.

Just as Somalia is a red herring where small government is concerned, the argument that a larger government grew out of a small government doesn't imply that North Korea represents some kind of utopia.

 

[MennoSota]

Government can go some way in protecting the fabric of society, making laws that prohibit direct aggression against another being an obvious example. When the body of law becomes so large no individual can possibly be expected to understand it all, government is growing too large and needs to scale back. For instance, is there a good reason why it should be illegal to hold a contest in which participants attempt to capture a greased pig?

When God's law is as simple as "love God, love each other" I'm not sure where the idea that God's will was for us to have a government that prohibits the drying of clothes on a clothes line actually comes from.

Have you ever read the entire Mosaic Law?
You don't have to be libertarian to call for a smaller government. Basic economics can provide data that tells you what is the appropriate size.

 

[tango]

Have you ever read the entire Mosaic Law?

I have. Have you read how Jesus summed up the law?

You don't have to be libertarian to call for a smaller government. Basic economics can provide data that tells you what is the appropriate size.

The appropriate size is often a matter of personal opinion. Some like the government to regulate just about everything while others would prefer no government at all. For many people their own self-interest clouds things and they want laws to be passed that subsequently turn sour.

 

[MennoSota]

Look into it. Then get back to us.

And stop naming countries whose governments are the farthest thing from libertarianism that can be found.

Albion, I can talk with a dozen self-proclaimed libertarians and they'll all have a different twist. What they will all have in common is that they are lower middle class white men scared of losing their kingdom. There is no libertarian regime to point at since it is just theoretical and you disavow that Somalia and Albania are examples.
In any case, it has nothing to do with the law breaking of a restaurant owner in Virginia.

 

[MennoSota]

Hence the observation - if the government is too small it doesn't work. If the government is too distant it doesn't work (hence the reason you overthrew British rule). The fact that a government that is too small doesn't work isn't an argument to allow government to require regular payments to preserve the right to operate a boat, or impose licensing requirements to arrange flowers or cut hair, or get involved in a dispute over whether or not a sole proprietor must oblige every customer however distasteful he finds their request.

Just as Somalia is a red herring where small government is concerned, the argument that a larger government grew out of a small government doesn't imply that North Korea represents some kind of utopia.

Taxes are a function necessary to support governments existence. I live in a high tax State. I give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to God what is God's. No worries.

 

[MennoSota]

I have. Have you read how Jesus summed up the law?



The appropriate size is often a matter of personal opinion. Some like the government to regulate just about everything while others would prefer no government at all. For many people their own self-interest clouds things and they want laws to be passed that subsequently turn sour.

I can sum up the US law.
"Help a brother out."
How's that?
We can actually use economics to determine the appropriate level of taxation that benefits the most while growing wealth. It's science.
The problem is that there are professional politicians who won't abide by science because they want to be elected rather than live within the numbers.
In the end, this has nothing to do with the Red Hen.

 

[Albion]

Albion, I can talk with a dozen self-proclaimed libertarians and they'll all have a different twist.

Certainly. When a persons concept is that the government ought to govern less...as little as is commensurate with preserving order, there are going to be differing views on what that level would be. That's no different from the differences of opinion among democrats and republicans as to what policies might bring about the level of action that is thought most appropriate for the achieving of their beliefs.

To take an example that we have been discussing, libertarians (and Reason magazine, FWIW) are likely to say that the restaurant owner in the Sanders situation--and the several bakers who got in trouble with gay activists--should all be permitted to serve whomever they wanted to...but not to beat them up when they entered the store or take their money and THEN refuse service!

The line between a small government and no government is important since the latter means acceptance of force and fraud, and that would be to allow the violation of individual rights and liberties which are at the heart of libertarianism.

And, as is the case with all political ideologies, there are people who will identify themselves as X or Y or Z and not actually be in step with those philosophies at all. That cannot be prevented, but we can take care when saying that a certain political ideology is such and such simply BECAUSE some person we encountered has styled himself as a follower of that cause.

 

[tango]

Albion, I can talk with a dozen self-proclaimed libertarians and they'll all have a different twist. What they will all have in common is that they are lower middle class white men scared of losing their kingdom. There is no libertarian regime to point at since it is just theoretical and you disavow that Somalia and Albania are examples.

If you talk to a dozen self-proclaimed Republicans and a dozen self-proclaimed Democrats you'll get 24 different twists. What of it? People identify as the group that most closely matches their views. Some libertarians would probably like to see near anarchy with a privatized police force. Others would like to see government scaled back but to a lesser extent. What does that prove?

In any case, it has nothing to do with the law breaking of a restaurant owner in Virginia.

If you believe in liberty it kinda does. Should we be required to surrender liberty just because we decide to go into business for ourselves? That's ultimately what this is about. If I choose to open a restaurant should I lose the liberty to cook for whoever I choose regardless of how irrational someone else might consider my criteria? If I open a cake shop should I lose the liberty to make cakes, or not make cakes, as I see fit?

 

[tango]

I can sum up the US law.
"Help a brother out."
How's that?

You really think that sums up the US law? What about when "help a brother out" means giving him something like cannabis to ease his pains, in a state that still prohibits the use of cannabis? Even giving someone a painkiller containing codeine will land you in trouble. Sorry, you'll have to do better if you want to sum up untold thousands of pages of legislation.

We can actually use economics to determine the appropriate level of taxation that benefits the most while growing wealth. It's science.

What has benefiting the most got to do with anything? Even that assumes that the fruits of one man's labor are fair game for another to appropriate for their benefit. Or flip it around - what has growing wealth got to do with anything? Isn't it better to grow happiness even if that doesn't involve wealth? And suddenly it's anything but science.

The problem is that there are professional politicians who won't abide by science because they want to be elected rather than live within the numbers.

Which is another good reason for politicians to have less power. Take power away from them and there's less reason for lobbyists to try and buy influence with them.

In the end, this has nothing to do with the Red Hen.

Except it does, in that sooner or later it has to be decided whether we are free to do business on our own terms or whether the state gets to decide for us when and how we must do business. Whether we're declining a gay couple getting married, a politician whose stances we find objectionable or anything else, either the law gets involved or it does not, and the boundary has to be objectively defined.

 

[tango]

Taxes are a function necessary to support governments existence. I live in a high tax State. I give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to God what is God's. No worries.

Nobody said taxes weren't a necessary function but that proves nothing. What level of government existence is appropriate and what level of taxation is required to fund it? Arguing that taxes are necessary proves nothing other than that an across-the-board tax rate of zero isn't going to happen. Your argument has no grounding in reason - the fact that some taxes are necessary to fund government does not justify any particular level of taxation. Your argument is akin to saying that we have to have some rules or society falls apart, therefore government regulating every single aspect of our lives in the style of North Korea is acceptable because, you know, you gotta have roolz.

 

[MennoSota]

If you talk to a dozen self-proclaimed Republicans and a dozen self-proclaimed Democrats you'll get 24 different twists. What of it? People identify as the group that most closely matches their views. Some libertarians would probably like to see near anarchy with a privatized police force. Others would like to see government scaled back but to a lesser extent. What does that prove?



If you believe in liberty it kinda does. Should we be required to surrender liberty just because we decide to go into business for ourselves? That's ultimately what this is about. If I choose to open a restaurant should I lose the liberty to cook for whoever I choose regardless of how irrational someone else might consider my criteria? If I open a cake shop should I lose the liberty to make cakes, or not make cakes, as I see fit?

Liberty does not mean discrimination can take place. People, including Christians, hide many sins under the guise of liberty.

 

[MennoSota]

You really think that sums up the US law? What about when "help a brother out" means giving him something like cannabis to ease his pains, in a state that still prohibits the use of cannabis? Even giving someone a painkiller containing codeine will land you in trouble. Sorry, you'll have to do better if you want to sum up untold thousands of pages of legislation.



What has benefiting the most got to do with anything? Even that assumes that the fruits of one man's labor are fair game for another to appropriate for their benefit. Or flip it around - what has growing wealth got to do with anything? Isn't it better to grow happiness even if that doesn't involve wealth? And suddenly it's anything but science.



Which is another good reason for politicians to have less power. Take power away from them and there's less reason for lobbyists to try and buy influence with them.



Except it does, in that sooner or later it has to be decided whether we are free to do business on our own terms or whether the state gets to decide for us when and how we must do business. Whether we're declining a gay couple getting married, a politician whose stances we find objectionable or anything else, either the law gets involved or it does not, and the boundary has to be objectively defined.

If you are a libertarian you will support unregulated free trade and open drug use.

 

[tango]

Liberty does not mean discrimination can take place. People, including Christians, hide many sins under the guise of liberty.

Liberty is freedom, no? Am I free if someone else gets to tell me that I have to accept their decisions regarding who I do business with? If the government tells me I have to accept an order I find morally objectionable how can they claim I am free?

 

[tango]

If you are a libertarian you will support unregulated free trade and open drug use.

Unregulated trade means a business can decide for themselves when and under what terms they do business. In theory that would mean a hotel could post their "no blacks, no Jews, no Irish" notice and refuse to provide accommodation. In practise it's hard to see very many hotels doing such a thing because the market would most likely drive them out of business. But if the local branch of the KKK was in town, maybe it's just what they'd be looking for.

Drug use really isn't anything to do with this thread, but feel free to start another thread if you want to go there.

 

[MennoSota]

Liberty is freedom, no? Am I free if someone else gets to tell me that I have to accept their decisions regarding who I do business with? If the government tells me I have to accept an order I find morally objectionable how can they claim I am free?

Individualism is not always beneficial to society. Sometimes our individual freedom must submit under what is best for the whole.
In a representative democracy, you can work to elect a person who best represents your moral and economic values.

 

[MennoSota]

Unregulated trade means a business can decide for themselves when and under what terms they do business. In theory that would mean a hotel could post their "no blacks, no Jews, no Irish" notice and refuse to provide accommodation. In practise it's hard to see very many hotels doing such a thing because the market would most likely drive them out of business. But if the local branch of the KKK was in town, maybe it's just what they'd be looking for.

Drug use really isn't anything to do with this thread, but feel free to start another thread if you want to go there.

In reality the discrimination will happen in other forms. One neighborhood that is predominantly Muslim refuses to serve Jews. Christians retaliate and refuse to serve Muslims. Progressives retaliate and refuse to serve Christians. No rule of law exists to stop the feuding and the retaliatory practices spread. Soon...someone is killed for being in the wrong neighborhood. You have segregation and violence. This is the inevitable outcome of your so-called liberties.

 

[tango]

Individualism is not always beneficial to society. Sometimes our individual freedom must submit under what is best for the whole.
In a representative democracy, you can work to elect a person who best represents your moral and economic values.

You're avoiding the issue. Whatever methods are used to elect a leader the chances are there wil lbe people who are unhappy with the person elected. The US right now is a perfect example where either a Republican or a Democrat is elected to the White House and approximately 50% of the country is unhappy about it. It's a perfect example of why we need the government to have less power.

Your arguments are little more than repeating "anarchy doesn't work" over and over. Nobody is saying anarchy does work. The question is whether or not I am free if the government tells me I have to do business on their terms rather than my own terms.

 

[Albion]

Individualism is not always beneficial to society. Sometimes our individual freedom must submit under what is best for the whole.

You are what is called a "Statist." Other people value freedom.

This stuff is easier than it is being made out to be in some of these posts.

 

[tango]

In reality the discrimination will happen in other forms. One neighborhood that is predominantly Muslim refuses to serve Jews. Christians retaliate and refuse to serve Muslims. Progressives retaliate and refuse to serve Christians. No rule of law exists to stop the feuding and the retaliatory practices spread. Soon...someone is killed for being in the wrong neighborhood. You have segregation and violence. This is the inevitable outcome of your so-called liberties.

Yes, because killing people is an obvious progression from not wanting to make a cake for them.

Quite a lot of businesses would rather just take the money than fuss about the person handing over the money. The ones that really don't want to go there are probably places the customer wouldn't want to go either. If a business found some aspect of me sufficiently troubling that they didn't want to take my money I think I'd rather go elsewhere than give them my money. Why would I want to go to a restaurant that I knew didn't want to serve me, other than to cause trouble?