Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In his response to Flanigan, Chris Bertram raised the question of sexual harassment—“What’s wrong with an employer saying to an employee (who needs the job, has bills to pay and kids to feed): ‘If you want to keep your job, you’d better let me f*ck you?’”—because he assumed it to be a paradigmatic case of wrongful coercion, the wrongness of which was not in dispute.
As it turned out, for some libertarians it was in dispute.
The Bleeding Hearts, to their credit, did not dispute its wrongness. But that defenders of so obvious an instance of coercion emerged from the woodwork is illustrative of the fact that libertarianism has some difficulties in this area.
In his response to Flanigan, Chris Bertram raised the question of sexual harassment—“What’s wrong with an employer saying to an employee (who needs the job, has bills to pay and kids to feed): ‘If you want to keep your job, you’d better let me f*ck you?’”—because he assumed it to be a paradigmatic case of wrongful coercion, the wrongness of which was not in dispute.
As it turned out, for some libertarians it was in dispute.
The Bleeding Hearts, to their credit, did not dispute its wrongness. But that defenders of so obvious an instance of coercion emerged from the woodwork is illustrative of the fact that libertarianism has some difficulties in this area.
Here's the thing...that is definitely not coercion. The job is the employer's to give or take away for any reason. If you're hired by someone, the job doesn't belong to you. That's the mistake that many people make.
So yeah, the boss is kind of a scumbag for doing that, and the employee should probably tell others what happened so they can punish the guy non-forcefully (boycott the company, protest, shame him, or if he has a boss you can go to them and ask that he be fired). The thing that libertarians would be against is an outsider who doesn't own that company coming in and FORCING them to fire that guy.
It's tempting to want to abandon any principles and just say "well that's sick of him to do that, so let's threaten that business with violence if they don't handle it the way we want them to", but then the whole principle of "don't aggress against non-violent people" is broken and there's no longer any guiding rule for when violence is acceptable.
In his response to Flanigan, Chris Bertram raised the question of sexual harassment—“What’s wrong with an employer saying to an employee (who needs the job, has bills to pay and kids to feed): ‘If you want to keep your job, you’d better let me f*ck you?’”—because he assumed it to be a paradigmatic case of wrongful coercion, the wrongness of which was not in dispute.
As it turned out, for some libertarians it was in dispute.
The Bleeding Hearts, to their credit, did not dispute its wrongness. But that defenders of so obvious an instance of coercion emerged from the woodwork is illustrative of the fact that libertarianism has some difficulties in this area.
Here's the thing ... that is definitely not the only area.
Here's the thing...that is definitely not coercion. The job is the employer's to give or take away for any reason. If you're hired by someone, the job doesn't belong to you. That's the mistake that many people make.
So yeah, the boss is kind of a scumbag for doing that, and the employee should probably tell others what happened so they can punish the guy non-forcefully (boycott the company, protest, shame him, or if he has a boss you can go to them and ask that he be fired). The thing that libertarians would be against is an outsider who doesn't own that company coming in and FORCING them to fire that guy.
It's tempting to want to abandon any principles and just say "well that's sick of him to do that, so let's threaten that business with violence if they don't handle it the way we want them to", but then the whole principle of "don't aggress against non-violent people" is broken and there's no longer any guiding rule for when violence is acceptable.
The statist has an insatiable need to use a 3rd party agent (the state) to settle disputes/enforce their morality on others.
Until this mindset is broken we will have the involuntary state which doesn't dispense justice...only arbitrary force.
The best and only alternative is voluntary contracts (and larger associations) that will shape behavior much more effectively minus the use of force...which is the highest evil imaginable.
This will leave unchecked sociopaths/other mentally ill folks as the only outliers of what most people consider acceptable behavior. Well, aside from a small group of rogues that refuse to join voluntary associations yet at the same time break their tenets.
And that's what the statist doesn't understand: the involuntary state doesn't discourage bad behavior. It actually gives those willing to do it sanctuary while not punishing violators where it would really hurt.
No true Scotsman is a fallacy. The argument comes from a Scot reading that an Englishman did a crime and saying that a Scotsman would NEVER do the same thing. Flash forward to a week later when a Scotsman does that. The Scot now says well a TRUE Scotsman wouldn't do that. You true Scotsman'd yourself with the real libertarian comment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
No true Scotsman is a fallacy. The argument comes from a Scot reading that an Englishman did a crime and saying that a Scotsman would NEVER do the same thing. Flash forward to a week later when a Scotsman does that. The Scot now says well a TRUE Scotsman wouldn't do that. You true Scotsman'd yourself with the real libertarian comment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I agree that it kind of was a no true Scotsman...but I think his point is that some libertarians, the anarchists, fully follow the libertarian philosophy, whereas the rest stray from it in differing degrees. Maybe "real" libertarians isn't the best way to put it, but "fully consistent" is.
@No_Recess Agreed, as usual. I recently heard someone say that a good indicator that you're correct/on the right track is that you can approach a topic from many different angles and still end up at the same conclusion. The reason I bring it up is because you make the same points that I do, just from a different perspective sometimes. It's good to look at the nature of our society and what it could possibly be from as many angles as possible...plus it keeps the ideas from getting too repetitive and stale when you hear it with new wording and in new examples.
I agree that it kind of was a no true Scotsman...but I think his point is that some libertarians, the anarchists, fully follow the libertarian philosophy, whereas the rest stray from it in differing degrees. Maybe "real" libertarians isn't the best way to put it, but "fully consistent" is.
@No_Recess Agreed, as usual. I recently heard someone say that a good indicator that you're correct/on the right track is that you can approach a topic from many different angles and still end up at the same conclusion. The reason I bring it up is because you make the same points that I do, just from a different perspective sometimes. It's good to look at the nature of our society and what it could possibly be from as many angles as possible...plus it keeps the ideas from getting too repetitive and stale when you hear it with new wording and in new examples.
I'm trying.
I've spent my life in the criminal justice field so I really concentrate on that angle when we get to some of these libertarian principles.
The state protects bad behavior by not only arbitrarily enforcing involuntary laws but it also forbids us from punishing those we wish to condemn (especially after they've done wrong).
If voluntary associations were the norm the incentive to do bad things (by those in and out of the association) simply wouldn't be worth it.
An owner openly tells an employee he wants a sexual favor and he can hide behind the state's laws. He can still get a haircut, have his books done by an accountant, get a burger from a restaurant, have a plumber fix his pipes, a roofer repair his roof, etc. because the state says so or else they will use force against them.
In the voluntary association world these folks can form contracts and refuse service to him. Like I said, been in the CJ field my whole life. I have no doubt this approach to molding what most of us consider bad behavior would be much more effective than the prison industrial complex.
I agree that it kind of was a no true Scotsman...but I think his point is that some libertarians, the anarchists, fully follow the libertarian philosophy, whereas the rest stray from it in differing degrees. Maybe "real" libertarians isn't the best way to put it, but "fully consistent" is.
@No_Recess Agreed, as usual. I recently heard someone say that a good indicator that you're correct/on the right track is that you can approach a topic from many different angles and still end up at the same conclusion. The reason I bring it up is because you make the same points that I do, just from a different perspective sometimes. It's good to look at the nature of our society and what it could possibly be from as many angles as possible...plus it keeps the ideas from getting too repetitive and stale when you hear it with new wording and in new examples.
I can agree with that idea that many angles laying to the same end result makes something correct, but I just don't see a "fully consistent" libertarian "state" working. Call me a statist all you want but I honestly think there are too many potential issues at play for it to work with the way things are today whether it is the welfare state, discrimination, anti-immigration stances, conversion to the NAP (without the mere criticism of non-physical harassment), etc. This is from both a liberal and conservative standpoint as both views would take issue with various "fully consistent" libertarian stances.
I can agree with that idea that many angles laying to the same end result makes something correct, but I just don't see a "fully consistent" libertarian "state" working. Call me a statist all you want but I honestly think there are too many potential issues at play for it to work with the way things are today whether it is the welfare state, discrimination, anti-immigration stances, conversion to the NAP (without the mere criticism of non-physical harassment), etc. This is from both a liberal and conservative standpoint as both views would take issue with various "fully consistent" libertarian stances.
agreed
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
