I did not say that there was any certitude beyond the minimalistic view of government. I merely mention that it is, in itself, a moral theory.
I did not say that all libertarians did those things. How is it more slanderous to mention those that do than comparing people who comparing those who want to promote a certain kind of society to Bin Laden? The point is that people can be fanatical about libertarianism, as they can about a lot of things. That is not slander, it is a valid observation.
By the way, I was not objecting to exercising 2nd Amendment rights, which I have defended, here and elsewhere. I was evoking an image, without getting too graphic.
Who knows what the market "would do", when, in fact, it did not erase such discriminatory businesses for decades on end. As it happens, in your view, whether segregation persisted or not would not matter, as long as people were exercising their property rights. Property rights are not absolute in the Constitution, and freedom of association is not so broad as to comprehend any sort of contact. Just as local government have zoning powers, the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. This has been broadly construed to allow for the regulation of businesses vital to the flow of goods, services, and people between the states. Hence the idea of "public accommodations". The relevant laws were perfectly Constitutional.
I did not resort to any kind of slurs, I reported facts. If I were inaccurate, I apologize, but it is has generally been my experience that when I mention the common good to libertarians, they tell me there is no such thing,or certainly no such thing in the classical sense. |
