Response to Response to Response to BS

I wrote a while ago about my view (from a female vantage point) of the libertarian movement and I answered Mr. Bice’s concerns from my perspective. He, predictably, ridiculed my position on (nearly) everything. His statements start with:

The Libertarian Party’s disagreement with anti-discrimination laws is probably pretty darn popular in some areas down south. Many areas of the country probably offer niche markets for various types of whites-only establishments, where the “white race” doesn’t have to be bothered with homosexuals, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. Such establishments would feed on existing racism, amplify the tendency and help foster this bigotry.

My whole point was that a person with a true mind for business success would never be a bigot. This idea works with gay/straight, smoking/anti, or even male/female. The idea is that a free open market will not tolerate what is reprehensible, and those of us finding a political home in the Libertarian Party are generally not a tribal sort of group. By nature, we are outside the comfort zone. Which brings me, quite naturally, to the Harry Brown reference

“Harry Browne, Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1996 and 2000, put it this way, ‘freedom from government – on all issues at all times.’” Why would a libertarian believe it was fine for government to restrict businesses from selling drugs. That’s so parental, and libertarians hate parental government actions. If drugs aren’t illegal, why should government have any role whatsoever? I thought the marketplace was were decisions like this were made. I’ve even heard some libertarians argue that Doctors should require licenses to practice, and that everyone should have the power to write prescriptions.

Newsflash!!!!!!(Again) Libertarians do not toe a party line. We have differences of opinion on some things. Harry Browne, who was before my L-time, does not speak for me on every issue. (And truly, I felt that this was not an issue to look up. Lazy night, but I am responding to a lazy argument.) It may seem strange to someone in the habit of regurgitating the party line word for word, but we love that we are different. And, FTR, my husband is a doc. I support standards in that field-but profession regulated standards. Truthfully, I would like to sue him for malpractice because he told me to suck up a hurt foot on a run. Turned out that I had a fracture, but I am not the normal patient- he doesn’t have to order a ton of x-rays to cover his ass with me. That is gov-reg baby. Get them doing unnecessary tests to avoid liability. CYA in today’s climate can be costly.

Katrina- the bitch that slapped the country. Hmmm. Yes, Bice. It was regulation misappropriation of designated cash that drowned NOLA. While the local gov was spending money on fountains and parties, the threat was high. I lived in NOLA from 1973 to 1995. All I ever knew was to get the hell out of town for a cat 4 or better. Go to Phuket and see how they are rebuilding the area. (Dude, I was there in November and I witnessed the (unsafe by US standard) scaffolds and 12 year olds on mopeds weighed down with lumber.) There is something to be said for personal responsibility.

Education choice is not a choice. That Bice pretends that it is- is frankly- silly. The only choice today is to pay for a sub par product- and then pay again.

Perhaps Mr. Bice should leave the party of his parents and step-maybe for the first time- into his own. The LP is not perfect, but we never did pretend to be the only deal out there. We, unlike the others, offer a choice.

posted Feb 24th, 2006 by michelleshinghal
  • http://www.savesmallschools.org/jake Jake Porter

    Regulations are the reason my grandmother was denied cancer medication the doctor wanted to give her. The medication could have harmed her they said. I don’t know if she would have lived, probably not but it was none of the governments business what medication she took.

  • http://xterminal.livejournal.com Robert Beveridge

    >>Harry Browne, who was before my L-time,

    Hee! Young’un.

    >>My whole point was that a person with a true mind for
    >>business success would never be a bigot.

    Perhaps not the best way to put this. “A person with a true mind for business would not allow his bigotry to affect his business’ policies” might be more accurate. I know a good number of businessmen (of various colors) who are virulent anti-(fill in the blank)s, but subscribe to the “all money’s green” credo (as they should).

    Bigotry and business acumen are two whole different parts of the brain, and the actions of most morons would make it seem they can’t coexist peacefully in the same person. They can, though.

  • Torfinn

    You should sue him! He’s a doctor he can afford it.

    Or atleast threaten to, and maybe extort him for chores for a month or something.

    I don’t really know if I’m libertarian, but it’s about the closest thing I am to any classification so I roll with it.

    I hate arguing that it’s not anarchism just because it’s opposed to regulation. Small government doesn’t mean no government at all, the government obviously has their place, first and foremost protecting the citizens from t3rr0rist drug tsars!

  • scottp

    I checked out his blog and found myself agreeing with many of his previous columns. But we certainly part ways on his views of Libertarianism.
    Oh yeah, I just noticed Michelle’s picture, she’s hot.

  • michelle shinghal

    Robert, thanks for reprhasing my comment for clarity. Truthfully, I had to log on to see what I had ranted about. It is always the last glass of wine. ;o) As for the doc, Torfinn, he paid. To hear him tell it, he pays everyday.

  • http://libspot.org/member/mlaursen/blog1/ Mike Laursen

    re: “My whole point was that a person with a true mind for business success would never be a bigot.”

    Like Henry Ford and his open-minded attitude towards Jews? Just because we libertarians believe in free markets, we shouldn’t live in a fantasy world. Of course there are racist business people.

  • http://360.yahoo.com/pong_god Robert Mayer

    Here’s my take – there should never be any laws prohibiting bigotry nor any other form of socially unpleasant attitudes. Even the most statist, PC types won’t go as far as advocating laws prohibiting a homeowner from discriminating with regards to who may enter his/her house. Why, then, should the rules be any different for a privately owned business? The fact that an individual decides to open a business “to the public” doesn’t change the fact that it is still privately owned and therefore the right to decide who may or may not enter rightfully remains with the owner.

    Michelle is correct that business owners who choose to set arbitrarily discriminatory (and wildly unpopular) policies will tend to be ostracized by the majority and will struggle to survive in a competitive marketplace. There’s no need for government regulations which accomplish little more than destroying private property rights.

  • http://libspot.org/member/mlaursen/blog1/ Mike Laursen

    Please read this story of a black journalist’s bus journey through the South:

    ‘

    It’s best to triangulate the readings our libertarian compass gives us against other moral compasses, like the tenant that all people should be treated fairly and with dignity.

  • http://libspot.org/member/mlaursen/blog1/ Mike Laursen

    Let’s try that again:

    http://www.post-gazette.com/sprigle/199808SprigleChap21.asp

    “On that bus trip across three states from Atlanta to Cincinnati, as usual, nothing much happened. Only that we Negroes had the least comfortable seats, ate in squalid cubbyholes -or not at all – and found our Jim Crow rest rooms filthy and evil.”