Justin Raimondo

April 20, 2009

I see Andrew Sullivan is citing some ?libertarian? blogger defending ?anti-discrimination? ordinances as applied to gays. The blogger, one ?KipEsquire,? lists a series of rather draconian punishments directed at ?bigots,? such as a photographer who wouldn?t take pictures of a gay wedding (fined over $6000), a psychologist in Georgia who wouldn?t counsel a lesbian about her relationship (she was fired), a Christian ferility clinic threatened with closure for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian, and a Christian student group denied recognition by a California law school because they only admit members who are faithful to their spouses. According to “Kip,” these aren’t vicitms—they’re getting their just desserts! He writes:

?The ?victimized? Christian bigots are of course not making a thorough, comprehensive (i.e., truly libertarian) demand for full entrepreneurial freedom of contract ? and its reciprocal ?right to refuse service to anyone.? All they want to do is discriminate against gays. Not ?anyone and everyone.? Just gays.
?Which is precisely why they should not be allowed to do so. As I have blogged previously: Whether or not you approve of bans on private discrimination is not the point ? we are not debating the creation of Libertopia.

?The point is instead whether, given that we already have such laws, are we going to craft and apply those laws consistently, logically and equitably ? or are we going to short-circuit the entire raison d??tre of such laws by allowing the majoritarian mob to fashion carve-outs for the very same insular minorities who are most in need of such laws??

In other words, ?libertarian? principles don?t apply when the consequences are politically incorrect.

Let?s apply this ?libertarian? principle to, say, the bank bailout: the ?victimized? taxpayers are (of course!) not making a thorough, comprehensive (i.e. truly ?libertarian?) demand for full entrepreneurial freedom of contract ? all they want is the right to refuse to subsidize the banks, AIG, and the other members of the ?too-big-to-fail? club. Just big businessmen.

This is precisely why they should not be allowed to abstain from making such subsidies. After all, given that we already have such bailouts ? to the auto industry, for example ? are we going to craft and apply those laws consistently, logically and equitably ? or are we going to short-circuit the entire raison d??tre of such laws by allowing the majoritarian mob to fashion carve-outs for the same same insular minorities who are most in need of such subsidies (without which they?ll go bankrupt tomorrow, and bring the entire American economy down with them)?

You see how that works.

Since ?we aren?t debating the creation of Libertopia,? all principles, both real and imagined, are thrown overboard, and it?s deuces wild. Which is just how certain ?libertarians? like to play the game.