I wasn't saying you did. It's a reductio ad absurdum.
I am just asking where government power to tell people who they can do business with ends. It must end somewhere. But where is that line? Opinions vary.
And my opinion is that it should extend far enough to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
who are all assholes? And you don't want to do business with them
If you stop doing business with assholes, you're going to be out of business in a real hurry.
It is possible to believe in free association without thinking taxes are theft.
True, but people who think the former should allow businesses to discriminate, often believe in the latter.
Businesses that only let in people with proper attire and enough money are also discriminating, just based on different criteria.
You're being silly.
I just think freedom is more important than masking discrimination
Because you narrowly define freedom to refer only to an extreme interpretation of freedom of association, and not freedom from discrimination in public accommodations. Read the 14th Amendment for a different point of view.
I believe freedom of speech is more important than not hearing bigoted speech.
Nobody is talking about restricting freedom of speech.
There is a difference between a law that may conflict with someone's religious religious principles, and a law that exists for the purpose of restricting someone's religious belief or practice. If there was a religion that sacrificed small children by the light of a half moon, would the fact that it's illegal be a violation of the 1st Amendment?
First, it is disingenuous to pretend to know what someone else "would argue" unless they actually do it.
That I've heard libertarians make this argument 100 times shows that I'm not pretending. It's a broadly held belief amongst libertarians. I didn't say it was absolutely universal, and I presume you could figure that out without me making every statement in legally precise terms. This is a blog post, not a treatise.
what really has my curiousity up is where your characterization "Manichean" came from
From characterizing everything as either strictly private, or strictly public, as though private ownership of a business made everything that business does a strictly private matter.
You're being terribly naive. Nobody writes a bill that says "ok to discriminate against gay people". It's always couched in some more general language, with some sort of more general rationale, as cover for the real agenda. Has there recently been a spate of frivolous lawsuits against people working out of their homes that "don't want to provide service to someone for some 'other' reason"? Didn't think so.
People have the right of free association. the government should not force someone to associate with someone. this includes being forced by the government to perform a service or sell a product with someone you don't want to.
You forgot the "taxes are theft" line. Private affairs means your home and whatnot. If you have a business that otherwise lets anybody with the money and proper attire to come in, then it's no longer a strictly private affair, even though it's privately owned.
but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service
Why?
To me there are basically three categories, public, private, and something in-between that I'll call "public accommodation". In your private affairs you can be as bigoted as you want. You can also speak or write about it, have religious convictions, whatever. Obviously prejudice at the public (government) level shouldn't be tolerated, and can easily be made illegal. The third "public accommodation" category refers to things that are privately owned but readily accommodate the public, such as stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. If you've got the money (and in some cases are dressed appropriately) you can walk in and do business. Libertarians, in their Manichean view, would argue that such businesses are privately owned. Sorry, but I don't think that private ownership gives you the right to do anything you want. It reminds me of the Greensboro Four, whose (intentional) offense was to try to order some food at a segregated lunch counter. Should that be legal?
Which still doesn't demonstrate that people moved because of racism. My parents were/are no bigots, but they moved from NYC to the 'burbs in the early 50's because they could get a modest house with a yard for no more than they were paying for a crappy apartment. I know many people of my parents generation who did the same thing for the same reason.
I'm not saying that nobody moved in part because they were racist, but that was far from the main factor.
there was already racial unrest popping up in the 40's
There's been racial unrest in what's now the US since the 17th century.
The place I lived in was only built in the 60's, but it was a real concrete and brick building. Garden apartments are the worst, but it only costs a few percent more to give them decent soundproofing. It's no big secret how to. You can find lots of proven and inexpensive techniques on DIY sites.
Rowhouses (oops, town homes) are actually a nice compromise, especially since they have concrete or brick walls separating you from the noise next door. As you point out though, they don't work for dense cities. They're good for small cities or dense suburbs. If you have kids though, you want a decent size common area where they can play. That's often lacking in anything close to a real city.
That whole "white flight" thing is seriously overdone, but it's a good line for urban apologists because it makes anyone who moved out of the city seem like a racist.
The biggest reasons for the growth of suburbs in the post-WWII era was that there was a serious housing shortage, and people (especially those starting families - which was very popular then) liked the idea of an affordable single family home. Single family homes have always been considered desirable, which is why upper middle class to wealthy people had them in cities, rather than renting apartments.
In the sixties and seventies the biggest reason was crime flight, as the urban crime rate rose dramatically in those decades. I don't know if you've heard, but there were lots of non-white people in the cities since at least the great northward migration. Why didn't people move out then? Obviously there was racism, but that was mostly manifested in segregated neighborhoods, which meant that you average urban bigot didn't care about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say that or anything like it.
I wasn't saying you did. It's a reductio ad absurdum.
I am just asking where government power to tell people who they can do business with ends. It must end somewhere. But where is that line? Opinions vary.
And my opinion is that it should extend far enough to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
who are all assholes? And you don't want to do business with them
If you stop doing business with assholes, you're going to be out of business in a real hurry.
It is possible to believe in free association without thinking taxes are theft.
True, but people who think the former should allow businesses to discriminate, often believe in the latter.
Businesses that only let in people with proper attire and enough money are also discriminating, just based on different criteria.
You're being silly.
I just think freedom is more important than masking discrimination
Because you narrowly define freedom to refer only to an extreme interpretation of freedom of association, and not freedom from discrimination in public accommodations. Read the 14th Amendment for a different point of view.
I believe freedom of speech is more important than not hearing bigoted speech.
Nobody is talking about restricting freedom of speech.
There is a difference between a law that may conflict with someone's religious religious principles, and a law that exists for the purpose of restricting someone's religious belief or practice. If there was a religion that sacrificed small children by the light of a half moon, would the fact that it's illegal be a violation of the 1st Amendment?
In your private affairs you can be as bigoted as you want.
I'm talking about enforcing anti-discrimination laws, and you're talking about the Thought Police.
You can also speak or write about it, have religious convictions
1st Amendment. You should have learned that in school.
You're confusing the affairs of a business with the private affairs of a customer.
First, it is disingenuous to pretend to know what someone else "would argue" unless they actually do it.
That I've heard libertarians make this argument 100 times shows that I'm not pretending. It's a broadly held belief amongst libertarians. I didn't say it was absolutely universal, and I presume you could figure that out without me making every statement in legally precise terms. This is a blog post, not a treatise.
what really has my curiousity up is where your characterization "Manichean" came from
From characterizing everything as either strictly private, or strictly public, as though private ownership of a business made everything that business does a strictly private matter.
Wheelchair with an RPG launcher. Cool.
You're being terribly naive. Nobody writes a bill that says "ok to discriminate against gay people". It's always couched in some more general language, with some sort of more general rationale, as cover for the real agenda. Has there recently been a spate of frivolous lawsuits against people working out of their homes that "don't want to provide service to someone for some 'other' reason"? Didn't think so.
Maybe he's British. They use that word in reference to both sexes. Perhaps we should send a "Birds and Bees" book to that island.
To many people, it's not about gays at all. It's about whether the government can tell them who they can like or do business with and who they can't.
So we should re-legalize discrimination against black people? That would be progress.
This really is dangerous, as religion should be contained and eliminated from society.
Are you familiar with the word "irony"?
People have the right of free association. the government should not force someone to associate with someone. this includes being forced by the government to perform a service or sell a product with someone you don't want to.
You forgot the "taxes are theft" line. Private affairs means your home and whatnot. If you have a business that otherwise lets anybody with the money and proper attire to come in, then it's no longer a strictly private affair, even though it's privately owned.
but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service
Why?
To me there are basically three categories, public, private, and something in-between that I'll call "public accommodation". In your private affairs you can be as bigoted as you want. You can also speak or write about it, have religious convictions, whatever. Obviously prejudice at the public (government) level shouldn't be tolerated, and can easily be made illegal. The third "public accommodation" category refers to things that are privately owned but readily accommodate the public, such as stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. If you've got the money (and in some cases are dressed appropriately) you can walk in and do business. Libertarians, in their Manichean view, would argue that such businesses are privately owned. Sorry, but I don't think that private ownership gives you the right to do anything you want. It reminds me of the Greensboro Four, whose (intentional) offense was to try to order some food at a segregated lunch counter. Should that be legal?
Well, yes, that what it is "now". But from the 50's to say sometime in the 80's it was basically white flight.
What is your evidence for that assertion?
there was no GI Bill
Which still doesn't demonstrate that people moved because of racism. My parents were/are no bigots, but they moved from NYC to the 'burbs in the early 50's because they could get a modest house with a yard for no more than they were paying for a crappy apartment. I know many people of my parents generation who did the same thing for the same reason.
I'm not saying that nobody moved in part because they were racist, but that was far from the main factor.
there was already racial unrest popping up in the 40's
There's been racial unrest in what's now the US since the 17th century.
I thought that went without saying
I think it does - which is the worst part of all.
The place I lived in was only built in the 60's, but it was a real concrete and brick building. Garden apartments are the worst, but it only costs a few percent more to give them decent soundproofing. It's no big secret how to. You can find lots of proven and inexpensive techniques on DIY sites.
And NYC is an easy commute? You don't live in or around NYC, do you?
Rowhouses (oops, town homes) are actually a nice compromise, especially since they have concrete or brick walls separating you from the noise next door. As you point out though, they don't work for dense cities. They're good for small cities or dense suburbs. If you have kids though, you want a decent size common area where they can play. That's often lacking in anything close to a real city.
You do realize that the people protesting the Google buses do so because they don't want gentrification, right?
Our generation will NOT be putting up stupid suburban office warts. Those are for olds.
tl;dr
You don't have kids yet.
I don't understand your point. Ivan the Terrible lived in the middle of Moscow.
Do we get to build walls around them?
white-flight employees
That whole "white flight" thing is seriously overdone, but it's a good line for urban apologists because it makes anyone who moved out of the city seem like a racist.
The biggest reasons for the growth of suburbs in the post-WWII era was that there was a serious housing shortage, and people (especially those starting families - which was very popular then) liked the idea of an affordable single family home. Single family homes have always been considered desirable, which is why upper middle class to wealthy people had them in cities, rather than renting apartments.
In the sixties and seventies the biggest reason was crime flight, as the urban crime rate rose dramatically in those decades. I don't know if you've heard, but there were lots of non-white people in the cities since at least the great northward migration. Why didn't people move out then? Obviously there was racism, but that was mostly manifested in segregated neighborhoods, which meant that you average urban bigot didn't care about it.
The Director of Sustainability demonstrates the ludicrous line of thought that puts stadiums downtown.
And gets them paid for with tax money.