Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Praises Company For Firing Woman Who Posted ALM

[Echo1955]

How about political forums?

Free speech in political forums is fine. Any forum for that fact. We need not be afraid of bad ideas.

[John-G]

Free speech in political forums is fine. Any forum for that fact. We need not be afraid of bad ideas.

I agree that people shouldn't be afraid of opposing ideas or bad ideas especially with libertarians but part of liberty is the right of people and individuals to censors and control what is said in their space. I hate it when facebook does it, hate it even more when a liberty forum does it but individuals/corporations have the right to censor.

[Echo1955]

but individuals/corporations have the right to censor.

Why?

[devil21]

You are right but she did not praise the firing per say but rather the private company's response to perceived discrimination. Btw, I wish she didn't use that example because she did not articulate well and leave her open for attack by her detractors.

If you listen to the clip you can get the idea that she think the firing was absurd with her emphasizing how it was done in private and how no customers were harmed.

My point is that she did not praise the firing and that is what the OP would like you to believe. Any reason no matter how disingenuous to get us back into the D/R plantation

Hey man, quit it with that researching and watching interviews for context nonsense! Ain't nobody got time to actually do that stuff. Kneejerk, inaccurate Libertarian Derangement Syndrome inflammatory thread titles from shills are all we got time for these days.

[dannno]

Looks like she was bit by a bat, got a rabies shot.



Libertarian candidate scraps rally appearance after being bitten by bat
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-bitten-by-bat

[jmdrake]

Can I envision a scenario in a free society where a firm loses market share due to racism? Yes.

Can I envision a scenario in which it has no impact whatsoever on a business? Yes.

I live in an area that is 99% white. My business involves serving the public so I get to know people and other businesses. There are business owners in my area that would absolutely discriminate based on race/sex/religion. I think it is safe to say that their businesses would be fine if they were legally allowed such actions. Libertarians often overestimate how progressive people have actually become in the 21st century.



Yes, I'm familiar with this argument. Spike Cohen likes to talk about this all the time. However, there is no proof that in a truly free market, all/most businesses would prefer not to discriminate. It is human nature to self-segregate. I think libertarians need to accept this as long as the NAP is being followed.

True. The issue IMO isn't "Can a racist ever make money in a truly free market." Rather, "can a person affected by racism nonetheless find somebody willing to take him on as a customer with full customer service and benefits in a free market?" Again the Uber/Lyft model. As a black person I have never had to wait what I considered a long time for a rideshare. I've never had one cancel on me. As a driver I've had riders cancel on me but I never chalked that up to racism. Even if race was a factor I was not concerned because most of the time I got a new rider in minutes. I have not had the "I'm black and I can't get a taxi" experience, but then I've only ridden in a taxi twice in my life that I can recall, but I've heard those stories enough and seen enough stats to accept that is a thing. But taxis operate off of government licenses and an artificially created monopoly.

[Swordsmyth]

Hey man, quit it with that researching and watching interviews for context nonsense! Ain't nobody got time to actually do that stuff. Kneejerk, inaccurate Libertarian Derangement Syndrome inflammatory thread titles from shills are all we got time for these days.

She was using the company as a "good" example and the woman as a "bad" example, context will not save her.

[Anti Federalist]

I agree that people shouldn't be afraid of opposing ideas or bad ideas especially with libertarians but part of liberty is the right of people and individuals to censors and control what is said in their space. I hate it when facebook does it, hate it even more when a liberty forum does it but individuals/corporations have the right to censor.

Define "their space".

On the clock...fine...you set the rules.

But off...that's my time, and I should be free, and protected by law, to do and say whatever I please.

Strange how "pure" libertarianism eventually morphs into ChiCom "Social Scoring".

[Brian4Liberty]

Focus on racism, IMHO, plays directly into the hands of the Marxians. In the entire universe of freedom, how big of a role does the dreaded and inflammatory "racism" play?

What business is affected by it one way or another? Sports, entertainment, retail, small business, etc? ... there is no aspect of modern business that is based upon or directed by racism, other than as a political virtue signalling marketing angle.

[Swordsmyth]

Define "their space".

On the clock...fine...you set the rules.

But off...that's my time, and I should be free, and protected by law, to do and say whatever I please.

Strange how "pure" libertarianism eventually morphs into ChiCom "Social Scoring".

Focus on racism, IMHO, plays directly into the hands of the Marxians.

Almost like some posters and "Libertarians" are working for the CCP.

[John-G]

Define "their space".

On the clock...fine...you set the rules.

But off...that's my time, and I should be free, and protected by law, to do and say whatever I please.

Strange how "pure" libertarianism eventually morphs into ChiCom "Social Scoring".

Slow down, by "their space" I am talking about inside their property, physical or virtual property. We get complains all the time about facebook censorship and bans but they do have the right to do so inside their virtual property, the same way RPF can ban member for absolutely no reason. Heck facebook at least tries to give you a reason for the ban and a chance to appeal the ban unlike this place.

Can you give examples of pure libertarianism leading to chicom style social scoring? I am not saying that it cannot lead to it but do you have examples of this happening?

[John-G]

Why?

You don't need to explain why but if you insist on getting an answer, it is because of ownership. I really hate censors but your property, your right to shyte inside it.

[familydog]

Well, the only social media I follow is youtube, so I wouldn't really know what she is doing on other platforms

She inserted herself squarely on one side of the culture war by praising black lives matter and demanding that we be actively anti-racist. Whatever that means.

This cannot be said loud enough, my mouth dropped when I heard Ron say famines wouldn't exist in the free market. I think its time that we become honest with ourselves and stop saying that govt is virtually all bad. As someone who has worked in transplant unit, I can tell you that govt and govt programs have forced many medical research that would have never been funded in a free market system. You see the thousand of people on dialysis, heart transplant, lung transplant etc and you are looking at people who most likely would have been dead today without those R&D money. I am talking about billion of dollars in research and then billions more for treatment and care for the people who gone through the program.

At heart, I'm a libertarian anarchist. So I view everything the state does as evil and unnecessary. However, a free society is not utopia. I recognize that. I just wish other libertarians would as well.

But then again, I think people should understand there there will be a little bit of embellishment when it comes to campaigning. Regardless, the libertarians would be much closer to what they promised than what the R and D candidates promise the masses every year.

Embellishment to what end? Gaining an extra .01% of the popular vote? Siding with the left on cultural issues has not proven to be effective at growing the libertarian movement.

But she is trying to promote the idea that the free market will improve on racial discrimination. So again, why would she bring up this case in this conversation? this doesn't help her case at all. It is a tight rope to walk, wooing the majority of the general public who are skeptical of libertarianism while keeping the votes of people like you who are open to the idea of it. I truly believe she is doing a fantastic job walking that rope

I just don't agree that the free market will improve on racial discrimination. Might it? Yes, of course. Could it make it worse? Certainly in some areas.

In the end, Jo represents pragmatic libertarianism instead of principled libertarianism. Pragmatics have decided to plant their flag with the left on cultural issues and demand that the libertarian movement as a whole be dragged in that direction. Would her message work for some groups in some areas? Yes. Would it work for all groups in all areas? Clearly not.

Libertarianism must be decentralized. Out of the NAP can be spawned all sorts of arguments in favor if a libertarian society. Its just that it needs to be tailored to specific groups.

[familydog]

True. The issue IMO isn't "Can a racist ever make money in a truly free market." Rather, "can a person affected by racism nonetheless find somebody willing to take him on as a customer with full customer service and benefits in a free market?".

Interesting. Yes, that is an important question.

Is there a market for serving an under served portion of society?

If there is no market, would charities and non-profits fill in the gaps?

It is possible that neither could exist in a given geographical area within a free society. At which point that person/people need to find another location that is more friendly to their inherent traits or chosen attributes.

[Anti Federalist]

Can you give examples of pure libertarianism leading to chicom style social scoring? I am not saying that it cannot lead to it but do you have examples of this happening?

It's happening every day, all around us.

Where people, for holding or speaking "incorrect" political positions are subject to job loss, loss of banking services, loss of academic standing and so on.

Granted it has not, yet, widely affected the ability to travel, it doesn't take too much imagination to see that is what is coming next as more and more corporate entities adopt ever more punitive "wokeness" policies.

[Anti Federalist]

Slow down, by "their space" I am talking about inside their property, physical or virtual property. We get complains all the time about facebook censorship and bans but they do have the right to do so inside their virtual property, the same way RPF can ban member for absolutely no reason. Heck facebook at least tries to give you a reason for the ban and a chance to appeal the ban unlike this place.

Not meant to be snark, I think it is a legitimate question.

Screwgle, for instance seems to think "their space" is the whole world, and everything and everybody in it.

[John-G]

It's happening every day, all around us.

Where people, for holding or speaking "incorrect" political positions are subject to job loss, loss of banking services, loss of academic standing and so on.

Granted it has not, yet, widely affected the ability to travel, it doesn't take too much imagination to see that is what is coming next as more and more corporate entities adopt ever more punitive "wokeness" policies.

We live in a system where the govt can shutdown private enterprise because of an overreaction to a virus and you think any of this is pure libertarianism? sorry but very little of what is going on around us is pure libertarianism. But yes, in a pure libertarian society, there will be communities and systems that will shun/ban you for your speech but those places are going to be the least profitable businesses. Yes, there will be bad actors in it and just as long as there are enough people to turn a blind eye to their immoral actions, those places will continue to operate. Take RPF for example, I used to think there will be a backlash when all the banning of long time beloved members started and nothing happened. Members were surprising OK with the the management's actions. If RPF can get away with it, I wouldn't be shocked if xxxx woke corporation would be able to do the same.

We all have to speak up when we see unfair actions like the firing of people with incorrect political speech. We need to boycott, write letter and make as much noise as we can. The free market works best when people push back against injustice. You start in small places like online forum where you post and move up to businesses you patronize.

[John-G]

Interesting. Yes, that is an important question.

Is there a market for serving an under served portion of society?

If there is no market, would charities and non-profits fill in the gaps?

It is possible that neither could exist in a given geographical area within a free society. At which point that person/people need to find another location that is more friendly to their inherent traits or chosen attributes.

I think the mistake you make here is to conflate under served with poor people without money. Jmdrake is referring to under served groups with money, if there is money to be made, there is usually someone willing to take a chance. So no need for charity/non profits to enter the market.

I will continue to agree with you that a free market system will not be perfect, it will have gaps, businesses that discriminate, business failures, scammers and frauds etc but the idea is that it would have less of those negative components than the govt regulated markets.

[jmdrake]

Interesting. Yes, that is an important question.

Is there a market for serving an under served portion of society?

If there is no market, would charities and non-profits fill in the gaps?

It is possible that neither could exist in a given geographical area within a free society. At which point that person/people need to find another location that is more friendly to their inherent traits or chosen attributes.

And here is where my Christian morality trumps my libertarian ideals. The NAP is a moral argument. As long as you have not initiated force you are within libertarian morality. You see a child drowning in pool? Even if you could save his life by simply extending a pole to him, under strictly a NAP principle as long as you didn't push him in the pool you have no moral duty to intervene. But from the Christian principle "Whatsoever you would that men would do to you, do you also unto him", you have a moral duty to save a life if you can do so without risk to yourself or others. The Christian Bible doesn't call me to use force against those who don't want to follow its precepts. But it calls me to shun them. "Have no fellowship with unbelievers. For what fellowship has light with darkness?" As a Christian I fully expect God to take care of those who refuse in this life to "Do unto the least of these My brothers" because that's what He said he would do. My job is to "shake the dust off my feet" and go to another town, not just to find people more friendly to "me" but to find people who are truly Christian and friendly to everyone. That's how I see Jo Jorgenson's call to "anti-racism." There shouldn't be thought crime laws against racists. But people who aspire to an ideal greater than NAP, a Christian ideal (that's how I define it) don't need to associate themselves with people who use NAP as an excuse to be a$$holes. There are things in this life more important than NAP. Being anti-racist doesn't mean you have to kick in people's doors and burn their copies of mein kampf. I'm not a fan of the confedaracy or confederate statutes though I support other people's right to be fans but that support wouldn't have extended to my going to Charlottesville to protest alongside neonazis and klansman. Yes there is a culture war. And our culture is, and has been for a long time, f'cked up. I am no more a fan of the rightest "Let's keep up statues of civil-war criminals and post-war racial terrorists like Nathan Bedford Forrest because...history" than I am of leftest "Let's let dudes with beards go into the ladies room as long as they throw on a wig and say they are women" culture. Both are morally bankrupt IMO.

[familydog]

And here is where my Christian morality trumps my libertarian ideals. The NAP is a moral argument. As long as you have not initiated force you are within libertarian morality. You see a child drowning in pool? Even if you could save his life by simply extending a pole to him, under strictly a NAP principle as long as you didn't push him in the pool you have no moral duty to intervene. But from the Christian principle "Whatsoever you would that men would do to you, do you also unto him", you have a moral duty to save a life if you can do so without risk to yourself or others. The Christian Bible doesn't call me to use force against those who don't want to follow its precepts. But it calls me to shun them. "Have no fellowship with unbelievers. For what fellowship has light with darkness?" As a Christian I fully expect God to take care of those who refuse in this life to "Do unto the least of these My brothers" because that's what He said he would do. My job is to "shake the dust off my feet" and go to another town, not just to find people more friendly to "me" but to find people who are truly Christian and friendly to everyone. That's how I see Jo Jorgenson's call to "anti-racism." There shouldn't be thought crime laws against racists. But people who aspire to an ideal greater than NAP, a Christian ideal (that's how I define it) don't need to associate themselves with people who use NAP as an excuse to be a$$holes. There are things in this life more important than NAP. Being anti-racist doesn't mean you have to kick in people's doors and burn their copies of mein kampf. I'm not a fan of the confedaracy or confederate statutes though I support other people's right to be fans but that support wouldn't have extended to my going to Charlottesville to protest alongside neonazis and klansman. Yes there is a culture war. And our culture is, and has been for a long time, f'cked up. I am no more a fan of the rightest "Let's keep up statues of civil-war criminals and post-war racial terrorists like Nathan Bedford Forrest because...history" than I am of leftest "Let's let dudes with beards go into the ladies room as long as they throw on a wig and say they are women" culture. Both are morally bankrupt IMO.

You raise many valid points. I agree with some and disagree with others.

You could be correct in what she believes, but her statements on "black lives matters" and her attempt to clarify her comments leave me no less sure of her intentions. It looked to me (and many, many others) that she was taking a strict leftist approach to racism, the state and culture. I've already made up my mind on who will get my vote, but I will continue to follow her campaign whether she is the one that gets it or not.

[Danke]