tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post1681915032106074908..comments2024-03-28T00:11:33.489-04:00Comments on bensozia: Freedom and LibertarianismJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-71425057919507812622016-08-08T09:03:28.348-04:002016-08-08T09:03:28.348-04:00"I've never understood the mindset of Lib..."I've never understood the mindset of Libertarians being so anti-regulation and aggresively against government controls and restrictions. "<br /><br />That kind of thinking might come from Hayek, Vienna, fascism (and communism). The thinking goes that such regulations, while well-intended and often effective, lead down the road to totalitarianism (serfdom). I think this has been proved wrong. Then again, maybe it has nothing to do with that.Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05353532874773316117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-69128215774477648452016-08-08T08:34:09.557-04:002016-08-08T08:34:09.557-04:00I would ditch the word freedom. This is about the...I would ditch the word freedom. This is about the tyranny of the majority and what limits we are willing to place on it. A democracy without checks. but with a clear, like-thinking majority is as susceptible to tyranny as any autocracy. Isn't the structure of our democracy built upon the premise that limits must be placed on the majority? The irony is the only way for all to enjoy liberty is to place limits on it. <br /><br />The problem -- where all this starts to become unclear (for me) -- is local border skirmishes, where deeply held but opposing values come into contact and conflict with one another -- say, for example, a family owned bakery and an LGBT activist. Seems to me a company that owns a chain of bakeries and trades on the NYSE is a very different thing than a family owned, single bakery lodged between the hardware store and the barber shop. Should the same rules apply to both? Is it wise to do so? <br /><br />The FHA (Fair Housing Act) seems to recognize this distinction:<br /><br /><i>As written, the FHA covers most — but not all — housing. Some exemptions to coverage under the FHA include: (a) owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units (which is commonly known as the Mrs. Murphy exemption); (b) single family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker if the private individual owner does not own more than three such single family homes at one time; or (c) housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.</i><br /><br />I keep going back and forth. On the one hand, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. (I'm not LGBT.) How often will someone ask a baker to bake a wedding cake when they know the baker hates their very existence. There are ways the baker can get out of doing it, and if he can't, additional ways to ruin the memory of the wedding by baking a lousy tasting cake. On the other hand, if you live in a small town with a single bakery in, say, Wyoming, where the next town is more than 60 miles away, this very much matters. So I'm on the side of LGBTs. But is there an FHA way of handling this, and if there is, should we?Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05353532874773316117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-18656365736265661602016-08-08T07:09:49.109-04:002016-08-08T07:09:49.109-04:00The trick is that freedoms are often mutually excl...The trick is that freedoms are often mutually exclusive.<br /><br />If you want the freedom to, say, dispose of industrial waste however you please, such as just dumping it in the local river, that necessarily infinges on other people's freedoms, such as living in a world where pollution doesn't hurt or kill them or the environment they live in.<br /><br />Thus, we're forced to decide between which freedoms we value more. Do we value the time, money, and effort of a business more than we value the health and happiness of the common citizen? In most cases, no we don't - and that's why we put regulations in place, to protect people from harmful behaviors which unchecked capitalist enterprise would otherwise incentivize.<br /><br />I've never understood the mindset of Libertarians being so anti-regulation and aggresively against government controls and restrictions. Are they somehow ignorant of history, and of the countless examples of destructive, exploitative behavior carried out in the name of profit when there wasn't a system in place to prevent such behavior? Have they never heard of The Gilded Age, or of Robber Barons, or of organized crime, or of conmen, charlatains, quacks, and profiteers? Are they really so naive as to think a world of minimal government intereference wouldn't necessarily be one of maximal private exploitation?G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.com