–A top notch read, highly recommended, especially if you are a libertarian. A great blend of history and leveled critique of the modern libertarian. You may just realize that you’re not so “libertarian” after all after reading this.

I went into teaching because I wanted to make a difference. Most of us do. I certainly did not go into it for the money or the pension. Hell, at the beginning of my career, at the ripe old age of 20, I didn’t even know exactly what a pension was, nor had I ever heard of the State Teachers’ Retirement Association. As for those that say we go into it for our summers off? Well, they just sound stupid. I was an idealist that wanted to change the world by teaching music to some of the world’s children.

But the way I wanted to make the world, the collective, a better place is to concern myself with individuals, and their individual successes and failures. One of my goals as a teacher has always been to foster students’ independence; to teach them enough about music theory that they can go into any music store, pick out a piece of music they like, and learn it on their own; to train their ears to the level that they can listen to their favorite song on the radio and figure out for themselves how to play it; and, of course, to teach them enough about life that they can go out and live a self-sufficient and productive one, hopefully as a patron of the arts. For teachers, this is pretty standard. Regardless of what you are told by certain members of the talk-show media, I do not know a single teacher that wants to create little minions for the state. Nor have I ever met an educator whose ultimate goal was to put more of the populace on food stamps.

Fast-forward 20 years to find me wholly interested in politics, and not politics just for the sake of debate, as fun as that can be. But politics for the sake of making the world a better place. See, I think as a society we’ve failed, or at the very least, we’re getting a D. We’ve had altruistic goals, but what of our results? Have we nurtured self-sufficient individualists? Or have we created like-minded dependents? My attraction to libertarianism does not come from a desire to be left alone as much as it comes from a belief that collectivism does in fact, hurt the collective.

Collectivists mean well. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked. House the homeless. Those are honorable goals, and goals that can be met in a libertarian society, just not met by our government. Recently I saw a picture of a woman holding a hand-written letter heralding her gratitude for Obamacare. Great, I’m glad she was healed. Ironically, the same day I also saw this article about primary care physicians going bankrupt.

So, because of Obamacare, this individual was able to get a service that she could not afford on her own. Her hand written letter says nothing of her having the freedom to get the service and pay out of pocket, at possibly an outrageous cost, but get the life-saving service none-the-less. Nor does it mention the fact that she could have asked for a self-pay discount and then worked out a payment schedule that she could handle. No, because of the culture we have grown up in, it is her RIGHT to receive this service and it is clearly someone else’s responsibility to pay for it. Perhaps it is the medical professionals’ responsibility to provide her with their years of training, study, and nights away from family, for free. Of course, she also neglects to consider the effect that PRIOR government intervention had on the prices of that service to begin with. Medical licensing/medical training limited by government (again for arguably good reasons, but it DOES contribute to the current cost of health care) and tax incentives for businesses to offer third party medical insurance. Anytime a person perceives that something is free or nearly free, they use more of it. Do I take my children to the doctor more often than I need to now because of my relatively low copay? Probably. Years of government meddling and reactionary legislation for the “greater good” and now Miss “I am Obamacare” can’t afford to be responsible for her own health AND, according to the yahoo article, doctors are going broke. That’s nice that she received free healthcare since “Obama passed health-care reform” (her words, not mine). Forget that her ability to do so might make it harder for the rest of the collective to receive health care after doctors go bankrupt.

Of course, I wonder if the writer of the article about doctors will do a follow-up piece on how MORE government intervention would make things better. Such is the way of collectivism… state a problem, and instead of allowing the private sector the freedom to solve the problem, or even the individual herself to address the problem, introduce large-scale one-size fits all centralized solutions. Nevermind if a whole new set of problems is created. Vote for me, and all will be well.

And that is just what may piss me off the most about statists, the apparent inability to see past the immediate problem to the potential consequences of their proposed solutions. Of course, reducing the size of government will also cause problems. One could argue that just changing the status quo is a form of government meddling. I don’t pretend that trying to go backwards down the path we’ve been on is going to be pain free, I just see it is the best possible solution for…wait for it…society as a whole. There’s that collectivist streak in me again. The born-again limited-government Republicans that act like things will be all rosy once they are in office are lying. This is why some stumble over newly learned limited government mantras as the words come out of their mouths. They would prefer to say that they can fix everything for you too, just like their brethren on the other side of the aisle. But the Democrats promising you free college, free food, and free high-quality health care are lying too. Give me a politician that promises me nothing, only that he will get out of my way and give us a chance to solve some of our problems for ourselves will get my vote. Oh hold up, wait a minute! That’s probably why I like Ron Paul. He isn’t even promising to pre-emptively blow up Iran for me.

Collectivism also weakens the individuals within a society. A liberal friend of mine often accuses Libertarians of being social Darwinists. Let the weak fail to strengthen the herd. What he fails to realize is that societal evolution, or subtle changes in social norms, happens whether we want it to or not. Obviously, many of the changes in social norms have been for the better. In one generation, America has gone from a segregated country to electing a black president. But we’ve also gone from the “greatest generation” to a generation of young adults who believe that they are entitled to things that their grandparents worked tirelessly for. And this sense of entitlement spans the gamut of race, culture, and socio-economic status. Goldman-Sachs’ management felt just as entitled to tax-payer money as Miss “I am Obamacare” does. And some of us feel entitled to the limited government we were promised, but clearly, even that must be worked for.

Early in my teaching career, I had a parent-teacher conference with a young black student and her mom. The child had been having some behavior issues in my class, and I brought her mother in to discuss it. The mom looked at her child and said, “young lady, too many people have died so that YOU can receive an education. How dare you take that for granted?” The candor may have been shocking for me, but the expectations were in some ways refreshing. As parents, we don’t want our children to suffer. We don’t want them to face challenges they will naturally face in life without being prepared to face them. Yet, there are many parents that try to remove any and all challenges from the path of their child, and are shocked to find him dependent upon them, living on their couch, still covered by their health insurance at 25. We’ve done the same thing to society. We’ve set about trying to remove all negative consequences from individuals’ actions, and are shocked to find the country in a worse place for our efforts. Why do so many people feel like health care is not something they should have to pay for, but $200 for the newest Michael Jordan’s? No problem. Why do so many children feel that they MUST go to college, someone else MUST pay for it, and that someone owes them a job once they get out, no matter what their grades were, or whether they have any skill or knowledge to offer an employer. Perhaps we should take a cue from that parent I encountered early on, stop babying ourselves, remember that people have died so that we may live in sovereignty, and stand up and take responsibility for our own lives. Perhaps it’s time we listen to the words of the individualists, the Libertarians, even if they sound harsh against the backdrop of an ever-“progressing” collectivist culture. Because it just may be that the best way to “be our brother’s keeper” is to let him, be.

In 2010, the average winning House candidate spent about $1.4 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s 70% more than a decade ago. The average price for winning a Senate seat reached nearly $10 million in that cycle. The high cost of running for federal office often puts newcomers facing well-known incumbents — who often have more financial backing from supporters and political parties — at a substantial disadvantage.

The big expenses will come a few months from now, when much of the money the candidates raise will go to advertising. A Wesleyan Media Project analysis of data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG found that television ads for candidates running for Congress in 2010 racked up nearly 1.6 million airings at an estimated cost of $735 million, an amount that represents 61% increase over 2008. Read More

The more I think of the Megavideo take down, the more it bothers me, and one simple ground..no due process was granted to them at all and at this point I doubt there will even be a trial. The arrested people will likely be given fines as an easy way out of jail, all the hardware will remain in government custody, and never will the process used by law enforcement be subjected to judicial review.

Judge, jury, sentencing, all done ahead of time. The government decided they were guilty of a crime with no need to actually prove a crime took place.

Worse, even if there is a trial, and they win, it will take years on untangling red tape to get their hardware back IF they can get their hardware back (since the government can auction it off w/o a verdict rendered, even if they drop charges). The government also doesn’t have to pay restitution if it loses, they just keep what they seized.

In the end government gets what it wants..the site shutdown, even if they win their case, all because their fate was pre-determined and due process was omitted.

Perhaps the Fed wants to avoid having to prove the financial damage claims that are so often asserted when it comes to piracy. Given how prevalent piracy is now, one would think every software maker and media producer would be dead broke by now. Yet somehow NONE of them are listing piracy as a limiting factor on their quarterly earnings reports, profits are way up there DESPITE piracy.

So when, I hear of Megavideo causing $500 billion in damages, I want someone to actually PROVE that in a court of law.

To me that’s almost like saying I am damaging the sales by buying a used copy of a CD as opposed to a new one thus the record company can collect damages from me since that act denied them a sale of a new copy. The Feds must hate resale shops then, all that trading of used media, denying all those new sales and other people besides the publishers making money on the sale.

What next, will they raid my garage sales because I am selling a used DVD that has had 4 different owners, and I am not sending the $1 I made to the film studio that made the film?

They must really HATE public libraries, all these people getting to read, watch and listen to media w/o paying a dime for it. Those nasty pirates…imagine the financial damages that can be levied against a library? So many new sales denied due to all that ’sharing’.

These damages..all made up is what they are, its just a means of expanding their market share using the legal system as their tool. Why make and sell BETTER products when you can punish potential customers for not buying your mediocre to low-quality offerings. That way you keep production costs down as well as maintain your captive market.

According to a statement from the Ron Paul campaign, Paul more than quadrupled his numbers from 2008 from 15,773 to 77,993. Also, “After tonight, only 37 delegates, or 1.6 percent of total delegates, have been awarded. The race for the Republican nomination is a marathon—not a sprint—and our campaign has in place a comprehensive plan to secure 1,144 delegates and win the nomination.”

According to other sources, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did not qualify for enough state-ballots in order to win the necessary amount of delegates needed. Only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have the staying power to try and win and it very well could come to a showdown at the GOP convention.

The petition, which was available via a link from Google’s homepage, states that although fighting online piracy is important, the plan of attack described in the SOPA and PIPA bills would be ineffective.

“There’s no need to make American social networks, blogs and search engines censor the Internet or undermine the existing laws that have enabled the Web to thrive, creating millions of U.S. jobs,” the petition reads. “Too much is at stake -– please vote NO on PIPA and SOPA.”

The search engine frequently delights users by toying with its homepage logo, but on Wednesday it did something it had never done before: it blocked out its logo completely.

A link below the blackout read “Tell Congress: Please don’t censor the web!” and lead to a page with the petition.

Of course, Google’s anti-SOPA and PIPA petition is not the only one out there on this day of mass online protest. As of this writing 1.458 million people signed a similar petition at the activist website Avaaz.org, and Fight for the Future said that between its two sites, Sopastrike.com and AmericanCensorship.org, at least 350,000 people have sent emails to representatives in the House and Senate.

A graphic put out by Google shows that before today’s coordinated protests, 3 million Americans had signed various petitions against the two bills.

In other SOPA number news, a spokeswoman from the popular blogging platform WordPress, said that at last count, 25,000 WordPress blogs had joined the SOPA and PIPA protest by blacking out their blogs entirely, and another 12,500 used the “Stop Censorship” ribbon.

Today, the White House Blog reports that 103,785 people signed petitions through the We The People website asking the president to protect a free and open Internet.

After awhile, you bill your neighbors for keeping the neighborhood safe. You tell neighbors who balk that not paying means they’ll land in the basement brig with the criminals.

“Most people would recognize this as outrageous behavior,” observes Huemer, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Yet in Huemer’s thought experiment, the vigilante’s behavior is that of a rudimentary government, focused on preventing crime and collecting taxes. Read More

Now let’s have the simple answer first. Yes. A sane, better-focused libertarianism would be utterly compatible with transparency. In fact, it should be the very top priority. Read More

Today we stand in solidarity with other sites who have chosen to black out in protest of SOPA and PIPA. There will be no posts or updates today. You can do your part by informing friends and family of these pieces of legislation and pointing them towards this article for more information. Thank you for your support!

Arkansas: Passenger Gets $1 After Excessive Cop Tasering

An often repeated line by many liberals and even some conservatives, is that it is hypocritical for a libertarian to accept money from the government in any form. So is this true? Not hardly.

Any stripe of libertarian believes that it is wrong for the government to give handouts, that this practice is unfair and leads to problems. Certainly no true libertarian would accept a handout from the government that grants them a special privilege or right over others. This is the key issue with corporate handouts and something that libertarians fight ferociously against. When the government grants this sort of privilege through legislation and regulation it ultimately leads to wealth and power pooling in the hands of a small group of people and making it so that others either barely or can’t get by and that there is very little wealth mobility. It also severely stifles innovation. This is the problem we are experiencing in our society today.

Is this the same thing as accepting money from the government though? It is true that subsidies are the accepting of money from the government, however this is essentially the same as the other corporate handouts as noted in the previous paragraph. A subsidy is a special privilege that gives an upper hand to a select group of people, which serves to only harm consumers, workers, competing businesses, and innovation. So we can conclude that no self-respecting libertarian would advocate for or accept a subsidy.

So what else is left? The individual welfare system. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare are not essentially entitlement programs, though they do ultimately end up becoming entitlements. There is no doubt that people ought to get back what they paid in to these programs, they are a social contract and even libertarians are entitled to their own share. The problem with these programs though is that due to the federal government’s policy of inflation, the cost of living always increases every year, making it inevitable that these programs must pay out more than they take in. If natural deflation were allowed to take its course, this would not be an issue since the programs could be maintained by paying back to people exactly what they payed in, only the money coming back would have more purchasing power due to lower prices from deflation. So on these two points, it would not be hypocritical for a libertarian to accept money from government.

What about programs such as food stamps, unemployment, and general welfare? It is all too true that these programs are entitlements. Often people get more out of these programs than they pay into them, and it comes at the expense of those who are successful enough to either not need them, or not qualify for them. Sure these programs have their benefits to the truly needy, however they also create problems of generational welfare and serve as motivation for people to stay on the public dole rather than attempt to lift themselves economically. Regardless of whether or not a libertarian wants to reform these programs to be more efficient, or if they want to get rid of them altogether, a topic of discussion that we will not touch on here, the grand question remains.

Since everyone is required to pay to support these programs, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with trying to get some of that money back, no matter where you stand on the subject. Those that say they stand on principle and refuse to take a “handout” from the government are perfectly well within their right to hold that stance, however you’d be crazy to not try and recoup some of your losses. We’re not just talking about money taken to help pay for these programs either, but the cumulative losses that exist due to all of the burdens people must bear because of government favoritism. All of the taxes taken, induced inflation, job prevention, loss of liberties, the transferring of wealth to the already wealthy, they’re all heavy burdens largely induced by government intervention. If you can recoup some of those losses through the use of welfare programs, go for it. If you choose not to do so on principle, that’s fine too.

It may go against ideology, but there’s nothing wrong with getting some of your money back.

This means independents let a small minority of the population choose the candidates they are to vote on in the general elections. Doing your duty as a voter is going to have to require more than just showing up at the polls come election day, it means going to the primaries and finding candidates beforehand. This and the support of third party and independent candidates are a must if we are to expect better outcomes.

Sometimes I need to work more than forty hours a week, sometimes I want to work more than forty hours a week, either way it’s to get ahead and be a little more financially stable. Often though, I’m unable to do so.

People need more money for any number of reasons and there’s nothing wrong with that if they’re willing to work for it. Say my child broke her arm, that’s at least $500 or the transmission went out in my car, and that’s at least $1000, if you’re like me, that’s a big chunk of change. In order to overcome that burden I either need to reduce my expenses somewhere else, or increase my income, which would be a lot easier than cutting expenses.

So the next day I go up to my boss and tell her that I need some extra hours this week in order to help cover some extra expenses that unexpectedly came up. She sympathizes but says that she can’t help me out. Company policy states that overtime is only allowed in certain cases where the business really needs extra help. This policy is in place because they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay the extra time and a half for overtime.

What am I to do? Since the business I work for is unwilling or unable to pay me the extra money due to overtime laws, I am unable to obtain more than my standard forty hours. If I want to make extra money I now have to go through the process of finding another job that will be compatible with the schedule of my main job, which I will have to waste time and gas getting to, and will likely be paid less than what my other job pays.

I do appreciate what the overtime wage laws are trying to do for me, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If I could make an agreement with my company on a week to week basis to work more than forty hours for my standard pay, I’d be a lot better off and the business wouldn’t be able to exploit me. Instead of having to find a second compatible job that I’d have to spend time and gas driving to and make less money at, I could simply stay where I’m already at and just work a few extra hours each day until I reach the desired hours I need.

The overtime wage laws are really hurting those that they’re intended to help the most. The laws don’t necessarily need to be repealed, but we do need more choice in how we sell our labor to businesses so that we can be more financially stable during rough times.

According to data breaking down entrance polls conducted by Edison Research, Ron Paul won 43 percent of independents who voted in Tuesday’s caucus.

Conversely, however, he garnered only 14 percent of those describing themselves as “Republicans.” This seems a substantial obstacle to the Texas Congressman’s eventual nomination as he is running as a Republican. Read More

Two Democratic Congressman introduced legislation last week to revive the military draft, taking a race-baiting shot at the President and his war plans. Their idea is not new, however, as similar proposals were introduced by Republicans in the months following September 11th. Although the administration is not calling for a draft at this time, last week’s controversy shows while conscription has been buried for 30 years, the idea is not necessarily dead.

Neither the Pentagon nor our military leaders want a draft. In fact, a Department of Defense report stated that draft registration could be eliminated “with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on military recruitment.” Today’s military is more high tech and specialized than ever before, and an educated volunteer force is required to operate our modern Army, Navy, and Air Force. Most military experts believe a draft would actually impair military readiness, despite the increase in raw manpower, because of training and morale problems.

So why is the idea of a draft even considered? One answer is that our military forces are spread far too thin, engaged in conflicts around the globe that are none of our business. With hundreds of thousands of troops already stationed in literally hundreds of foreign nations, we simply don’t have enough soldiers to invade and occupy every country we label a threat to the new American empire. Military leaders conservatively estimate that 250,000 troops will be needed to invade Iraq, while tens of thousands already occupy Afghanistan. Add another conflict to the mix- in North Korea, the Balkans, or any number of hot spots- and our military capabilities would quickly be exhausted. Some in Washington would rather draft more young bodies than rethink our role as world policeman and bring some of our troops home.

Military needs aside, however, some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the state. To them, the American government is America. Patriotism means working for the benefit of the state. On a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. This is why the idea of compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents Slavery and involuntary servitude.

I believe wholeheartedly that an all-volunteer military is not only sufficient for national defense, but preferable. It is time to abolish the Selective Service System and consign military conscription to the dustbin of American history. 500 million dollars have been wasted on the Selective Service System since 1979, money that could have been returned to taxpayers or spent to improve the lives of our nation’s veterans.

Ronald Reagan said it best: “The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral.” He understood that conscription assumes our nation’s young people belong to the state. Yet America was founded on the opposite principle, that the state exists to serve the individual. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

Excerpt from the article:

It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

My New Year’s resolution to my country. I will do everything I can to get Ron Paul elected and here is why:

Notice all this negative propaganda about Ron Paul only started coming out a week ago calling him a racist, anti-Semite etc, when the “right” saw they were losing in Iowa to the pro-peace, pro-freedom and individual liberty candidate, Ron Paul. They had nothing else on him –he has never flip flopped or changed his convictions. He has stood by the Constitution and his oath of office for 30+ years in office. So the media in coercion with those that OWN the media, do what they do best –they use negative propaganda to bring people down to have it their way. I think we’ve been through enough of this to know the game and how it’s played.

Ron Paul only gains supporters –he never loses supporters. Once you understand the message of our founders, of liberty and freedom you realize you must fight in order to keep America sovereign or in the end we will all lose –especially our children. We are broke. Our country is broken –yet we are supporting other countries militarily and monetarily while people in our own country can’t get jobs and lose their homes to foreclosure. Our roads and bridges fall apart while we rebuild those we bombed in wars we should not be having. The only one making out here are the war profiteers. They want to continue their cushy incomes so they will make sure to install those who will help them to do that. Apparently that seems to be all the candidates including the POTUS –all except for Ron Paul. Is it any wonder they don’t want him to win?

But the people are fighting back. I think the occupy movement proved that (or at least the beginning of the occupy movement before it was taken over by the very corporatist it was fighting against and the political hacks who wanted to use it for their own gain.)

I think the people are tired, hungry and verging on poor in this country. We need to begin again. These people running our country are crooks, traitors and obviously not doing what they are doing for the good of the people any longer (did we not just find out that Congressmen are ALLOWED TO INSIDE TRADE IN THE MARKET???).

We’re killing American citizens with drones –now you’re guilty and have no way to prove your innocence. Instead you are dead. NDAA, Patriot Act. Monsanto. Lobbyists. They are telling us what to eat, what medicine we have to take. Probing us at airports and radiating our children just to get on a plane to go to Disney World.

The people are fighting back and Ron Paul is the only choice we have left to make this country work before our monetary system collapses thanks to the biggest crooks of all –The Federal Reserve–the PRIVATE banking cartel that has robbed our children of their future.

None of the other candidates or the President are talking about these things. They want to keep things the way they are. They want to bring us back to the time of slavery. Our kids –sure they go to college and they take out loans to do it and they graduate and can’t find jobs because we no longer produce anything in this country –and they graduate in DEBT and can’t ever see a real future or buy a home or afford to have their own kids.

I lost a child to Big Pharma. They keep pushing anti-depressants and vaccines on our kids through the schools. When we were growing up no one died from pharmaceutical drugs. Today it’s the norm. Who are our biggest lobbyists? Those that get the most “FAVORS” from those running the country? Big Pharma. Amazing how many commercials and ads in magazines are those to push drugs on us and our kids. Aspartame is killing us slowly. It is in almost everything we eat! It was pushed through by, yet again, someone who at the time was “running the country”. High Fructose Corn Syrup is in practically EVERYTHING on our store shelves –yet it’s born from GMO produced Corn. Again, lobbyists –MONSANTO…..

Do I need to keep going on?

We are a broken nation and we need to fix it. Vote for Ron Paul if you care about America. It’s our last chance and our last hope.

Make your 2012 Resolution to help Ron Paul take our country back and begin the big fix that we need…..

We can’t keep going on this way.

Should it be illegal for a privately owned business to discriminate against people?

People discriminate every day. What instantly comes to mind with something like this is color of skin and gender. Discrimination can be any range of areas though, from looks, to speech, quality of clothes, pitch of voice, physical strength, etc. There are many things here that are discriminated against that people cannot control. Should we employ a bad singer over a good singer in order to avoid discrimination? Should we employ a weaker person over a very strong person to do a job that requires a lot of physical strength, just to avoid discrimination? How about the modeling business, isn’t that entire industry built on discrimination against ugly people? What of all female book clubs, doesn’t this discriminate against males? Scholarships that go to only black people? Businesses that will not hire people with visible tattoos or those who cannot pass a drug test but never show up to work inebriated?

What are we to do about all of this discrimination? We can’t simply pick and choose which discrimination to make illegal and which to not make illegal. Any time someone doesn’t get hired because they have a visible tattoo, should that business should be sued and fined for discrimination? Any time an all-woman book club doesn’t allow men in, they should be sued and fined? Any time there is a scholarship fund that is given solely to blacks but not other groups of people, they should be sued and fined? Seems like a lot of trouble to go through in order to prevent people from dealing with the people they choose. Also this opens the door for businesses and people to be sued all the time over false allegations of discrimination.

If someone opens a business, or even allows people to come in off the street into their private residence, there is no difference between the two, the owner has every right to deny entry of other people to their property, be selective about what people get which services, which people get what jobs, etc. The reasons for denying people entry to your property are vast and all of them are forms of discrimination. There’s no infringement of rights though since no one has a right to a business’ services or products.

To quote a woman’s perspective on this subject:

I believe that the entire human race, including both men and women, have the equal right to their lives, liberty, and property. But there is a difference between rights and legal privilege. Legal privileges are often granted by the state to one group at the expense of the genuine rights of another group. In my opinion, this act is immoral.

For example, what if a man owns a business and he prefers the company of other men and wishes only to hire men to work for him. Does he not have the right to make this decision? It is his business, after all. And is the state not violating his right to be the sole decision maker in regard to his property by requiring him to hire a woman against his will? The feminist would argue that she has a “right” to have a job at that location. But does she? I do not think so. I believe that she has the right to seek employment anywhere, and I believe that any potential employer has the right to turn her down for any reason including gender bias. It may be an ugly attitude, but his attitude does not violate her rights to her life, liberty, or property.

Now, for anyone who is at this very moment grinding their teeth over my remarks I will ask you to turn the situation around and consider if it were your business in question. For example, I have been to see female OBGYN’s who only hired women. Their offices cater to women who wish to deal only with women for their female medical needs. Now suppose that the law required the doctor, who ostensibly owns the clinic, to hire a certain number of men. First, the Doctor who runs the clinic has had her property rights violated by a legal privilege granted to men that requires her to hire men to work for her against her will. Second, her customers, who prefer to have their feminine medical needs taken care of by only women, have been harmed as they now must subject themselves to the presence of men when they are at the Doctor’s office having their needs met.

So why should women be granted a legal privilege that are denied to men? Should not the purpose of the law be to protect the rights of all? I do not believe that modern feminism seeks to promote equal protection under the law, but in fact seeks to promote legal privilege for women, which often comes at the expense of the rights of men. This is wrong. True equality protects the rights of life, liberty, and property of all and does not grant legal privilege to some at the expense of the rights of others.

When people take a question like this into consideration they tend to get some things confused, especially when they reflect on history in order to decide their answer. Many are getting confused about discrimination in the past and the effects it had.

Take for example this. When someone says, well if purple people are discriminated against by a majority rendering them unable to do business with a majority of the people in an area due to the discrimination, and they aren’t allowed to transport themselves to somewhere else, and others aren’t allowed to come to the area and do business with them, this is an infringement of rights because they have no recourse. In making this argument they fail to realize though that anytime something like this has happened, it has always been coupled with institutionalized force, that being government backed laws that actively discriminate against a certain group of people.

It’s not a free market and it has nothing to do with private businesses being selective of their customers and employees when there is use of government force to discriminate. During the Jim Crow era, blacks could have built a counter economy and began accumulating wealth had they been treated equally under the law, however the use of government to implement discriminate laws largely prevented this from happening. So people look back on history and say well this is what happens when we allow people to discriminate, so we need to go 100% the other way. They think all of this without taking into consideration that the government laws were the problem, not people being discriminatory. If you think the blacks could not have built such a counter economy due to the sheer amount of discrimination, think back to all of the people who had to start with nothing and build up. The early settlers of America were one such group, and they prospered so long as they were not prevented from going about their business to make a living for themselves.

Someone is always willing to do business with those who are being discriminated against so long as there are no laws preventing them from doing business with them. This is why discrimination ultimately fails because it isn’t lock-tight and cannot prevent the people that are being discriminated against from doing business with others who will trade with them. As long as people are not prevented from going elsewhere for employment and trade by those doing the discrimination, then that is liberty since no one is preventing anyone from doing business with the people they choose. It all comes down to whether or not the law discriminates, which should never happen. Everyone is equal before the law. Think of it this way as well, if there are enough people to make it illegal to discriminate, there are enough people to build a private sector friendly to those who are discriminated against. Businesses who want your money and know they can get you to buy from them by catering to your needs where others won’t will do so without having to be forced by law.

Now I know this doesn’t take into consideration valuable resources such as water, as it could be argued that someone could buy up all the rights to the water in an area and then discriminate against others. However natural resources are an entirely different subject and I differ in my view on these natural resources a bit from other libertarians. That is a discussion for another time, as this focuses primarily on groups, services, and products that are created by people.

What it comes down to is that people should have the ability to discriminate and it should be noted that opposition to a law does not equate to support for an action. It makes it easier for the rest of us to identify the discriminators and punish them accordingly with boycotts and bad PR. Besides, would you want to know if you work for or do business with a bigot so that you can change what you’re doing? Maybe it’s my pride, but anyone who wanted to discriminate against me due to a disability, I don’t want them getting anything from me and I want to know who they are so I can bring them down. We just don’t need laws that require people to participate in discrimination, as that is the real problem.