>

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Where is the Libertarian Consistency?

Lexington, Virginia Red Hen restaurant
Many libertarians came to the defense of the cake baker that refused to create a cake for a gay couple, arguing that the baker should be able to decide who he wanted to make a cake for and who he did not.

But where are these libertarians when it comes to defending the Lexington, Virginia Red Hen restaurant owner who tossed White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders from her restaurant?

It's the same principle. People should be allowed to service whomever they choose and refuse service to anyone for any reason but libertarians seem to be much more silent about the attacks made against the restaurant owner.

Where is the libertarian consistency?

It may be that true Trump Derangement Syndrome is support of Trump to the degree that libertarian principles or support becomes distorted.

This is what I feared from the beginning about the Trump presidency that he would suck the energy out of the libertarian movement---and he has. At the same time, we are losing the kids to socialism.

  -RW  

20 comments:

  1. You are absolutely right on this. We should be praising the owner of the restaurant and reminding them that there should be no laws dictating whom they must serve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not about praising the owner for their actions but defending their right to do so. You can think the owner is an idiot, and boycott her restaurant, and still defend her right to do what she did.

      Delete
  2. I belong to a libertarian Facebook group with 1200+ members, most of whom are young. Everyone seemed to understand that this owner had the right to exclude Sanders. The subject popped up yesterday several times. I do not recall anyone suggesting that the owner could not or should not ask Sanders to leave.

    Also, except for perhaps 1.5 Lab Manager types, everyone seems to understand that there is no clean libertarian solution to immigration under our statist system but also that these issues are readily solved and made moot by AnCap/PPS.

    ReplyDelete
  3. libertarians usually don't say much to defend someone unless mainstream media takes a side against liberty. Since the stories I've read are neutral to favorable for the owner (and I assume most of the rest are) I wouldn't expect much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to look around a bit, there are some pretty unfavorable tweets toward the owners from libertarians.

      Delete
  4. Not sure this is quite apples-to-apples as this restaurant doesn’t (yet) appear to be facing prosecution at the hands of the state.

    That being said, it’s a lot more commendable for a business to boycott state officials than it is to boycott gays.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I say a business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone gay or state officials or for any other reason including someone who wears pink shoes Sarah also handed her self very professionally(she offered to pay for the food she did not eat) good for her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah with her government earned salary for defending tariffs and the separation of parents and children. A real wonderful gal.

      Delete
    2. But I wasn't talking about tariffs nor children separation. Just the issue listed in the post.

      Delete
  6. Where are the libertarians to defend this owner? They are strongly encamped inside their tribal redoubt. The biggest lie is there is only one option, where only two tribes exist and, if you don't join a tribe, you will be destroyed by both. Think of this in the context of a prison. You either join gang A or gang B. There is no opt out. If you are in A and the guards, etc., are giving it good to B, all is good. Many right libertarians are happy to defend their tribe whenever the left is on the attack. Yes, their stated ethics and principles disappear whenever its their tribe getting it good and hard. I opt for the alternative, where liberty is my philosophical tribe, so to speak. And I defend liberty against aggression from either side. I get no satisfaction attacking the left using its leftist principles, nor do I get satisfaction attacking the right using its rightist principles.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is also a bug difference between handling yourself professionally in a situation and being a real good gal. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Libertarian consistency:

    -Be in favor property rights unless you're talking about brown people trespassing over private property.

    -Bash anyone who collects a government earned salary unless their last name is Paul, in which case you fellate them endlessly.

    -Deride any group action as 'collectivism', unless the group files as an LLC, in which case it magically turns into the free market.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure which libertarians you've been hanging out with, but any PPS- or NAP-based libertarian would have no objection, as a libertarian, to anyone excluding brown people, or any other color person, from their private property (they might have views as to whether this is the type of person they want to socialize or trade with, but that has nothing to do with libertarianism per se). The debate I see in libertarian circles is what to do with respect to so-called "public property."

      And, as a libertarian, I use the world "collectivist" in the pejorative whenever someone claims the right to use coercion on behalf of a group; but the libertarian issue is the use of coercion, not the fact that a group is involved. Thus if an LLC indicates a business grouping, that is not objectionable per se, unless that LLC is somehow using coercion.

      Delete
  9. Waxing poetic:

    Violence of the heart breeds bloodshed. What I see as a result of this owner's action is the sowing even more hatred. I don't think this is the way.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And I must add, libertarians came to the defense of the cake bakers because they were oppressed by the state. I'm sure a minority of libertarians agree with the cake bakers' motives (dissapproval of gay marriage). Those are two different categories. Right now the only thing up for debate is the motive of the restaurant owner, as there has been no state oppression. Libertarians agree on the right, but perhaps not the motive.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "This is what I feared from the beginning about the Trump presidency that he would suck the energy out of the libertarian movement---and he has. At the same time, we are losing the kids to socialism."

    RW, I'm curious about how you reach these conclusions. I don't know of any libertarian who has left the movement in support of Trump; maybe there are, but is there any way to measure the magnitude of this? And the kids seem to have been embracing a lot of weird stuff (socialism, social justice, etc.) well before Trump was elected. I'm sure Mises U will have more applicants than they can take this summer.

    There are some silver linings: the "He's not my president" movement and other Progressive introspections about democracy and the problems in centralizing so much power in the presidency, the increase in sanctuary cities, maybe the Europeans and South Koreans turning their back on the US, etc. I realize that this may all disappear when someone more respectable is elected to rule the US, but you don't see the chance for any seeds to be planted in statists' minds that maybe we need to think about alternative forms of governance?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Evan Smiley nailed it. If Sanders files a lawsuit then we'll defend the property rights of the Red Hen. Once again, however, your TDS has betrayed you. If libertarians have anything to say about this, it's in praise of Sanders (and the denouncement of the Coloradan cake-homosexuals) for her respect of Private Property.

    Whereas the Coloradan cake-homosexuals used the power of the State to violate a fellow man's property rights and religious freedom, Sarah Sanders simply walked away like any other good person in a PPS would do. Is it even more impressive that she is so close to the levers of power and still respects private property?

    Plus, why would I defend these tactless owners? They aren't protesting the State. They don't have a principle or religious belief that they're adhering to. The owners of the Red Hen are pink pussy hat wearing Commies. The husband is also a professor at VMI, a military school where he's paid with taxpayer dollars. These idiots love the State. They just want their guys in control so they can grow it quicker via illegal immigration.

    Finally, they are just bad business people. They will lose more customers than they gain out of this publicity stunt. Why should libertarians defend some dumbass Commies that happen to dislike someone who works for the government when that person just walked away from their restaurant?

    ReplyDelete
  13. RW, I don't see any libertarians rushing to defend Sanders either. I can only speak for myself. I see the hypocrisy of both the left and the right on this issue. What annoys me about the Left however, is that their hypocrisy is cloaked in so much moral indignation that I can't even stomach it. I do root for Trump, just so these smug Leftists once again despair. I really do. It's how much I can't stand them. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't support Trump. I don't support Republicans. In fact, I can't stand them either. But holy cow can the Lefty's grate on me, with their constant freaking posturing and selective moral outrage. Seriously, fuck the Left.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't know much about the Sanders thing but I agree they (should) have the right to refuse service to whomever they want for any reason. However my understanding is that the SJWs are freaked out about Sanders publically naming the restaurant that ejected her, which she of course also has a perfect right to do. Amirite?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "This is what I feared from the beginning about the Trump presidency that he would suck the energy out of the libertarian movement"

    Could be. For years I thought of myself as a Libertarian, until I realized the modern Libertarian movement in the US has become a suicide cult.

    ReplyDelete