Originally Posted by
Madison320
Originally Posted by
Occam's Banana
Originally Posted by
Madison320
Originally Posted by
Occam's Banana
"Our nation's ideological self-segregation is proceeding nicely." -- Michael Malice
Not really, in most cases self segregation is illegal. This is what libertarians should really be outraged about.
Yes, really.
We don't need "most cases" - we just need
enough cases.
I don't understand.
My point is that segregating by choice is usually illegal due to anti-discrimination laws. And that's what libertarians should be mad about. Anti-discrimination laws.
I don't see what is so hard to understand.
The desire to segregate oneself from those with whom one fundamentally and irreconcilably disagrees is a necessary precursor to actually doing so. Malice is making note of the fact that such desires are increasing - "our nation's ideological self-segregation is proceeding nicely", in his words - and if the number of people with such desires ever reaches a "critical mass" (what I previously referred to as "enough cases"), then the (relatively few) modes in which such self-segregations are still not legally permitted will become increasingly less tenable and enforceable.
And in fact, there are myriad ways in which such ideological segregations are at present not at all illegal. You may still choose with whom you associate in your personal/private life, where you live, the sources from which you seek information and discussion (such as RPFs), etc., etc., etc. Such instances far outnumber those in which your choices are (unjustly) constrained by law (as in for whom you must bake a cake, if you are baker). And even then, such constraints as do exist are often "unidirectional", so to speak. For example, a white merchant may be legally required to sell goods to black customers, but black customers are not legally required to purchase goods from white merchants. (It is this latter case with which the thread OP is concerned.)
Connect With Us