Well, I just have to respond to this one. Yes, Libertarianism is a "moral" theory as is conservatism and liberalism, but it may reasonably be considered true too, that is is not "just" a moral philosophy any more than conservatism and liberalism "just" are too. Yes, you mentioned it, but it denotes nothing notably distinctive about Libertarians. Similarly, the observation that some Libertarians may be fanatical denotes nothing notable that isn't true of adherents to other "moral" philosophies.
If you are denoting an image without being too graphic, it does still seem to slander libertarianism without logic, as Fangorn surely suggested.
Re: "Who knows what the market "would do", when, in fact, it did not erase such discriminatory businesses for decades on end."
How can we know that is a fact? In fact, Lester Maddox was a minority during those decades. In fact, the beliefs of most people working within the free markets plainly had a big hand in greatly limiting such establishments over those decades(hence anyone drawing the conclusion from your statement that the free markets didn't erase vast amounts discrimination over time, will have been woefully led astray).
Re: "As it happens, in your view, whether segregation persisted or not would not matter, as long as people were exercising their property rights."
Having read Fangorns view, he simply did not say nor imply that at all. He obviously cares whether segregation exists a lot, and I find that he plainly stated with some obvious pride that most people he knows wouldn't support a segregated establishment. He probably feels the markets will end such practices in due course. You see, while I hate to speak for him, I think it should be obvious his concern IS to see that segregation ceases to exist(with minimal strife along the way at that). The laws against segregation, you may well realize, have failed to "erase" segregation AND have probably fueled the organization of white supremacy groups to some significant extent beyond what would otherwise be the case(out of perceived necessity, thus absolutely subtracting from the perceived good the law attempts to accomplish).
It is easy for you to declare that the relevant laws are "perfectly constitutional," but in fact you've said nothing which would top the very real, logical, and opposing argument.
As for what you hear from libertarians when you mention the "common good," the bottom line is that regardless of how they are accustomed to couching terms, they believe in the common good first and foremost. I think they believe the greatest long run common good is achieved by protecting individual rights from the will of the democratic majority, for instance. This is what our constitution was all about, and I only hope that you will come to understand the full benefits of the freedom offered. The beneficial invisible hand of Freedom(is this classic, or what?) is in play in all issues, IMO. Here's to the common good as,
Freedom Works,
Dan B |
