Among the hysteria that has been caused by Indiana's religious liberty law there is sense to be made in all this. First thing, despite it's name, religion was not the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law was to reaffirm private property rights. The core was to return control to property owners to regulate their property the way they see fit. Unfortunately some turned this into an anti-gay/lesbian debate.
To start off I think organized religion is full of more bullshit than a politician and being a libertarian anarcho-capitalist I hate conservatives (both the Bill Kristol neoconservatives and Pat Buchanan paleoconseravtives) as much as I hate liberals. My support for this law is the agreement that one has the legal right to run their property. What the left seems to not get that is that if a a conservative christian refuses service to a gay person than the gay person can (and in my opinion should) take their money elsewhere. For one business that refuses service to someone for whatever reason there will always be another business who will be happy to give service to that person. That's the way the free market works. Another way to look at it, is if a business wants to refuse service to someone based on a trait of theirs why should that person give that business money? It's akin to asking someone to punch you in the face. If the left thinks that business owners shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to people then they should consider this:
Jewish businesses having to give service to Neo-Nazi's
Hispanic businesses having to give service to members of the Minutemen or Pat Buchanan supporters
Black businesses having to give service to KKK members
Muslims business having to give service to Conservative Christians and so on.
Under such government involvement these business owners can't legally refuse service to people that obviously don't like them without the threat of a potential lawsuit coming against them which could possibly put them out of business. With a real affirmation of property rights, these owners while could still face a lawsuit would have a much better chance of winning the case or getting it thrown out of court completely. A true free society allows the right to associate with who you wish and not fear government repercussion.
Ramblings and thoughts on politics and other issues from a citizen of New York state.
Showing posts with label private property rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label private property rights. Show all posts
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Another Neoconservative in Libertarian Clothing
The debate on how close former 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Candidate Wayne Allyn Root has gotten to Neoconservatives has been on and off. Some say that he is compromising Libertarian principals by suggesting alliances with those who were are enemies in the Bush Administration others say that in order to get our principals into the mainstream we have to work with them whether we like it or not. If there was another reason why NOT to work with statist conservatives and neoconservatives, Root just gave us another one with his opinion on the New York City Mosque issue;
Does "religious freedom" mean hate groups should build statues to Hitler in front of Jewish temples in America? Should Americans raise money to build Jewish temples and Christian churches at Mecca? Should Japan build a statue to the bravery of their pilots at Pearl Harbor? Should the U.S. build a statue to the bravery of our pilots at the site of Hiroshima? Aren’t those examples all about “freedom of expression,”
"religious freedom" and property rights? Perhaps, but is it too much to ask for a little consideration and respect toward others?
This proposed building of a mosque on hallowed ground is an ATROSITY towards America. To build a celebration of Islam within steps of 9/11 does nothing to increase religious freedom...it inspires hatred, divides our cultures, and increases the odds of violence and hate crimes. Common sense suggests this mosque, being built in this specific location, is NOT being built as a sign of friendship between Muslims and Americans...but rather as a sign of the lack of respect...a belief in
our weakness...and an attempt to embarrass and belittle us. The financial district of Manhattan is not a residential area with a large number of Muslim residents for the mosque to serve. Therefore common sense suggests that the only possible reason to build it there (rather than in Brooklyn or Queens where there are large Muslim populations) is to show Muslim contempt for Americans by building a monument to Islam in the shadow of the site of their greatest triumph over America.
Notice how he takes the same route as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich which is emotion with no facts. Which is a tactic of the left, facts be dammed lets just get people riled up. Interesting enough is a favored tactic of radical liberal Saul Alinsky.
Kissing up the Neoconservatives and their ilk was never a good idea in my opinion and Root's disregard for the First Amendment is sickening. Part of being a Libertarian is that you don't compromise on liberty and Root is doing just that in order to get his pat on the head from the statist right and other fake Libertarians like Neal Boortz. It's another reason I'm glad he was never elected Libertarian Party Chair. The other question remains will he actively oppose Warren Redlich who is the Libertarian candidate for New York Governor, who has supported the construction of the Mosque.
Does "religious freedom" mean hate groups should build statues to Hitler in front of Jewish temples in America? Should Americans raise money to build Jewish temples and Christian churches at Mecca? Should Japan build a statue to the bravery of their pilots at Pearl Harbor? Should the U.S. build a statue to the bravery of our pilots at the site of Hiroshima? Aren’t those examples all about “freedom of expression,”
"religious freedom" and property rights? Perhaps, but is it too much to ask for a little consideration and respect toward others?
This proposed building of a mosque on hallowed ground is an ATROSITY towards America. To build a celebration of Islam within steps of 9/11 does nothing to increase religious freedom...it inspires hatred, divides our cultures, and increases the odds of violence and hate crimes. Common sense suggests this mosque, being built in this specific location, is NOT being built as a sign of friendship between Muslims and Americans...but rather as a sign of the lack of respect...a belief in
our weakness...and an attempt to embarrass and belittle us. The financial district of Manhattan is not a residential area with a large number of Muslim residents for the mosque to serve. Therefore common sense suggests that the only possible reason to build it there (rather than in Brooklyn or Queens where there are large Muslim populations) is to show Muslim contempt for Americans by building a monument to Islam in the shadow of the site of their greatest triumph over America.
Notice how he takes the same route as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich which is emotion with no facts. Which is a tactic of the left, facts be dammed lets just get people riled up. Interesting enough is a favored tactic of radical liberal Saul Alinsky.
Kissing up the Neoconservatives and their ilk was never a good idea in my opinion and Root's disregard for the First Amendment is sickening. Part of being a Libertarian is that you don't compromise on liberty and Root is doing just that in order to get his pat on the head from the statist right and other fake Libertarians like Neal Boortz. It's another reason I'm glad he was never elected Libertarian Party Chair. The other question remains will he actively oppose Warren Redlich who is the Libertarian candidate for New York Governor, who has supported the construction of the Mosque.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)