I understand that you've assumed that they have an unlimited property right to discriminate; I'm arguing that such a policy is a net social negative. Your vision of the ideal society is deeply tribal, and firmly endorses the right to keep out undesirables. Your license to make fun of the "close our borders; illegals go home" crowd is officially revoked.

Obviously not. Invasion is destructive, costly, and involves sacrificing and ending lives. Besides, this is a stupid question. If someone says Christianity is valuable, do you immediately ask if they support the crusades?

No, I don't think having to serve blacks and gays is terribly onerous, but neither is being excluded from the lunch counter for being black or gay. It's not clear to me that the latter is obviously worse for society. It is also not clear to me that we should always do what is more valuable to society as a whole.

The lunch counter example is not really about society as a whole. You are contrasting the right of one person to not serve minorities of their choice versus the right of a given minority to enter a given private establishment.

When you define property rights strictly, as many conservatives do, you generally come down on the side of believing that the only right necessary to a right to property is the right of exclusion. More liberal interpretations generally treat property rights as a combination of a large array of rights rather than one very broad one.

You shouldn't care! In fact, it would be better for everyone if you mind your own business!

Yes, but in this case the other people, the people who complain about coercion, are using a more precise definition. To pretend that yours is the only one, and base a refudiation of their arguments on that, is dishonest.

It's not, but "not onerous" isn't a justification for imposing on someone else.

It's not onerous for you to mind your own business, is it?

Where do you think that crowd gets its money to force the immigrants out? The same institution you claim we need to protect the rights of minorities. So because we need a government to make sure that a black man has 100 restaurants to go to instead of 99 we also end up with an institution that forces people to pay for the acts that prevent illegals from coming in.

Actually I imagine if many people lived in a town where blacks or gays or whoever were excluded from lunch counters, they would find it rather onerous to "mind their own business." I know I would.

Hoppe isn't singling out gays. If you actually have the book and read 217-219 rather than one little passage, this is clear. He breaks it into 2 parts:

1. All those openly advocating egalitarianism/democracy are a threat to a free society. Think of it the other way around. All those openly advocating libertarianism are a threat to a hegemonial society. It can't be debated. Whether it needs to rule everyone's thought is another matter. It's costly to exclude democracy worshipers, same as with colored folk. If an irrational ideology threatens the established legal order, the cost/benefit could change. More likely, I think that once we get there, the myth of statism will be history.

2. "in a covenant founded for the for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. [original quote by Fly]"

This can't really be debated either. In a covenant of priests, those openly advocating hookers and blow after sundown on Saturdays pose a threat to the traditional oath of celibacy. Is two gay guys making out really a threat to human reproduction? The dudes across the street from me have a way better landscaped yard than most of my other (often douchey) neighbors. It's a "luxury" to isolate oneself from these "threats". There's nothing to get hysterical about here.

Obviously, but this was the contention of Nobel Prize winning public goods theorist Elinor Ostrom.

Why do we HAVE to have one with the other?

Ask yourself, would a whole town come to this in an actual free society? My opinion is that if you do you shouldn't assume the worst about people.

Geez, no ACist likes it when you bring up Somalia as evidence of anything. But make one specific policy proposal and all of a sudden we're doomed to the biggest evils of government.

HELLO?!?!?! This is what some of these people/articles ACTUALLY WANT. It's not a danger that we're debating whether we can avoid, it's the goal.

Possibly. Some. I would find it onerous to have one single place in my town that conducted such a policy. I would feel shame that my town allowed it and bile rising in my throat every time I walked past it. I know an awful lot of people would feel the same. I'd find it shameful for anywhere to tolerate open discrimination like this in shops/restaurants/barbers/whatever, and while I don't think it ends the debate, I think it is a legitimate factor to take into account.

of what? The quality of life has improved there since the government fell.

What articles/people? Please don't say Hoppe, because it only makes you look dumb. Anyhow, yeah, racism still exists. I don't think that segregated lunch counters would become so common where it would be a problem.

Then form a town where extra-juridical measures are strong enough to force out segregationist establishments. People can cooperate without forming a government.

So I should love it or leave it right? You sure you want to use this argument?

To clarify, I generally agree that the market and voluntary interaction should preclude selective exclusion from happening because of its detriment to society in the long run. But not if the people preaching voluntary association are doing so for the specific purpose of enforced segregation. Remember that many actual policies in an AC society are going to be guided by social norms. Freedom and individual opportunity has to be the goal, not a means to an end.

I'm saying that if some ****ing whale, rainforest, or place to pretend prejudice doesn't exist is so important to you, put your money where your mouth is. I don't care if 1 out of 100 restaurants has a No Whiteys sign up.

does not compute

Yes, Hoppe and the people who defend him. I agree it shouldn't be a problem, unless the people leading the libertarian movement encourage that type of behavior or say things like "it's not a big deal" and "mind your own business."

enforced through economic or propertarial ostracism. change "enforced segregation" to "ability to segregate" if you'd like.

I will if you will. If you care so much about zomg tyranny and the gubbermint 'stealing' your hard-earned money, then put your money where your mouth is and go set up your libertopian convent!

In the meantime, I'm quite happy living in a society which doesn't allow private discrimination, and if I ever live in a society which does allow it, I'll be perfectly happy to put my money where my mouth is and try and change the laws of that society!

This shows how little you know/don't read or understand who you are talking to. Read the paper by Block criticizing Hoppe?

I'm married outside my race, but yeah I'm definitely after a "policy" of enforced segregation. You got me! Here's a video apology just for you Alex.

Hoppe advocates feudalism. And he supports the idea of social-darwinism. You can accuse anyone here of ignorance it does not change the fact. I think someone as reactionary as Hoppe is on the same level as a backward racist. And racist posts are banned here, too.

zan- There are people alive today who personally were excluded from commercial establishments because of the color of their skin. The intellectual movement of American conservatives known as "libertarianism" can trace its background pretty neatly to opposition to the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.


This is not "assuming the worst about people," it's being loosely aware of recent American history.

Yes it can. You're really not a threat to 'hegemonial society' whatever that means. You're effectively powerless, and 'hegemonial society' doesn't need to discriminate or exclude you, or many other tiny political sects, because 'hegemonial society' is actually pretty resilient and can withstand the chattering of people on internet forums without having to practise some form of discrimination or exclusion. Allowing people who express dissent against it to basically function normally in society is one of its greatest strengths.

Well you are exagerrating, Ron Paul Libertaranism is not racist. You can learn alot from Austrian Economics. It is just the dangerous rightwing anarchy that makes me sick.