is because “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

The elephant in the middle of the airport is: nobody likes flying because it’s so goddamned unpleasant to be poked, prodded, and shuffled around by government agents; to have to show up several hours in advance of your flight just to wait in interminable lines to be poked, prodded, and shuffled around; and then to sit and wait for hours on your flight to leave because you had to budget so much time in advance not to be lectured by the government agents about how to schedule your time or end up missing the flight because you didn’t allow enough of a cushion for unexpected delays.

There are market opportunities for airports and airlines to improve their service, sure, but the dominant fact about the air transport market is that it isn’t a free market. The most unpleasant aspects of flying are forcibly monopolized and forcibly implemented by the federal government (which has no reason to care whether you fly or not). Moreover, even many airline companies have little reason to make things more pleasant for their customers, because the market is cartelized and subsidized; they can reliably count on receiving billions in bailouts from the federal government if their bottom line ever falters.

The major players in the contact lens market all have strong reasons to scramble to do a better job at following what customers want on the margin. That doesn’t happen with most of the unpleasantness that flyers face.

(Similar remarks, of course, apply to why the government-cartelized rail industry remains mostly useless to the vast majority of people in the U.S.)

FoolishOwl:

“I think that overcoming sexism will require both women and men, together — and that sexism hurts women and men, although not equally.”

Do you think that overcoming capitalism will require both workers and bosses, together — and that capitalism hurts workers and bosses, although not equally?

If so, why? If not, what is it about sex that you think makes the relevant difference from economic class as you understand it?

Kait Williams:

DT was, in fact, different from its predecessors in an important thematic way: the sexual satisfaction of the female protagonist was the issue; unlike the run-of-the-mill porn movie, male pleasure was not of paramount importance.

During the Victorian period, one of the most popular forms of pornography was the Turkish Harem story, in which a white European virgin is abducted and sold into sexual slavery in the harem of a Turkish Sultan. The pornographic content is a story of repeated rape; the arc of the plot invariably involves the once-reticent virgin coming to love being sexually violated. Sometimes a European rescuer comes along at the end of the story; the rescued woman is often reluctant to leave the harem.

These stories were told from the female protagonist’s point of view and are superficially about her sexual pleasure. Do you honestly think that that makes a story like this one in which “male pleasure was not of paramount importance”? Do you think that Deep Throat — a story based on a wild anatomical fantasy that makes the “female protagonist” take orgasmic satisfaction from sex acts that are normally only sexually stimulating to men — is different in any important respect? If so, how?

Given that Traynor was frequently sent away from the set, Lovelace’s tales of being forced to work at gunpoint beggar belief.

How is this any different from demanding of any other battered woman “Well, why didn’t you leave?”

Was she manipulated by him? Certainly, but it should be noted that her subsequent tales of violent abuse only surfaced after her failed foray into mainstream movie making, when she was fading into obscurity.

How is this any different from smearing any other woman who testifies that she was raped as a “gold-digger,” “publicity-slut,” etc.?

Whether you believe what Linda Boreman said or not, using these kind of smear tactics in order to discount her testimony is, frankly, despicable.

Kinsella: “I made a comment that it’s not libertarian to endorse the actions of a student in effect using a mechanism to punish a professor in this way.”

Since when did Hoppe acquire a natural right to keep his job whatever the administration thinks of his performance?

There are lots of reasons to think that endorsing the disciplinary actions threatened against Hoppe would be foolish. There are none to think that it would be “not libertarian.”

Macker:

I don’t see Muslim countries tolerating any sort of immigration by non-muslims or even equality for existing non-muslim citizens in their own countries.

Me:

This is false: there are in fact substantial populations of immigrant non-Muslims (especially from Europe, the United States, and South Asia) living in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (especially Dubai), Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Albania, etc., and there have been since these countries came into existence.

Macker:

You really need to learn the difference between citizen immigrants, guest workers, resident foreign nationals, and the like.

No, I don’t. I’m already well aware of the difference. And I’m already well aware that South Asian immigrants (for example) to Saudi Arabia are often treated very badly, and that the vagaries of their legal status (as, effectively, domestic service braceros) are often used in order to maintain control over them and treat them more badly than they would tolerate otherwise. So what? My statement said nothing about debates over the legal status of immigrants. It said something about whether or not “Muslim countries tolerating any sort of immigration by non-muslims”. If you want to talk about citizenship or the shitty way that immigrants are often treated, fine, but you should have made it clear that that was what you wanted to talk about to begin with.

Let’s take one specific example, Saudi Arabia. You claim they are just peachy when it comes to immigration.

No, I don’t.

As for your statement about there being lots of non-Muslims as citizens in Muslim countries.

I didn’t make one.

If I were going to say anything about non-Muslim citizens in Muslim countries, I’d point out that it’s very odd to try to make statements about a spectrum of different countries ranging from Indonesia, to Iran, to Iraq, to Turkey, to Saudi Arabia, to Bosnia-Hercegovina. And probably that most general claims you make about the treatment of non-Muslims in such a large swath of the world are very likely to be false.

Macker:

Why don’t you show a little moral fiber and use your real name.

(1) … because I have a website called Rad Geek People’s Daily (where, incidentally, anyone who wants to know my real name can find it easily in one click)

(2) … because there happens to be an raving imbecile (with similar beliefs to yours, incidentally) whose name is also “Charles Johnson”; the less confusion there is between us, the better

(3) … because it’s fun

I’m not sure what any of these has to do with a lack of “moral fiber.” Maybe you can enlighten me on the moral dimensions of using a nickname online.

New Kid: “Is it just me, or is pundit taking on a kind of negative connotation?”

If it is, then that’s all for the best, but the people who seem to be most under the sway of the “pundit” spell (such as, for example, the “pundits” themselves) still seem to be under the impression that it’s something good to be—if perhaps the occasion for a little phoney self-effacing humor.

So, just to make sure that lines of communication remain clear, I’ll stick to calling them “know-nothing blowhards” for the time being.

Macker:

One need only respect others rights insofar as it is reciprocal.

Me:

This is obviously false. If someone steals $20 you have the right to use force against her in self-defense in order to recover the $20 and any additional compensation for the time and money lost in recovering it. You do not have the right to steal from her willy-nilly, let alone to enslave her or burn her property or kill her. If you believe that any failure to respect rights allows you to treat the violator as an unperson, then you are not a libertarian; you are just unhinged.

Macker:

When I am talking about reciprocity I am not talking about it in an incident by incident sense. I am talking in a meta sense. I don’t have to respect the property rights of someone who holds the position that I have no property rights.

Of course, this position is even worse: you are no longer holding that people may forfeit their rights by violating yours (a position which is untenable but at least grounded in concrete actions), but rather holding that they may forfeit their rights by holding evil beliefs.

Do you earnestly believe that you have the right to assault the person or loot the property of, say, an avowedly anti-propertarian Communist? If not, why not—given that you claim to be under no obligation to recognize the rights of those who “hold the position” that you don’t have property rights? If so, why do you hold such a monstrous position?

Macker:

Why should I?

Because rights are natural and inalienable. People have them even if they explicitly deny that they have them. They are not contingent on acting in the right way. (Someone who violates my rights does not thereby become an unperson. They just have no right—and never did have any right—to use force to stop me from recovering compensation.) Far less are they contingent on having the right beliefs.

In fact, I have no problem whatsoever with locking said person up for the rest of their life.

I’m not interested in what you do or don’t have a problem with. I’m interested in what sort of argument you could possibly give to justify locking people up for ideological “crimes”.

I also don’t see how you could think I would be stealing from such a person. How you can possibly steal anything from someone who does not believe that property exists.

Because property rights are a matter of objective fact. They are not erased when someone stops believing in them.

Q: Why did R. J. Rummel explains switch from a libertarian to a “freedomist”?

A: Because a tin ear for morality often goes along with a tin ear for beauty. I am sure “freedomism” will do well in the annual Stalin Prizes, but then, so did Cement.

bigot, n.: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I guess I am a bigot, then. You see, I am strongly partial to my political group …

Of course, I already pointed out above that the definition has something importantly in common with ordinary usage but that it fails to grasp one important aspect: that “bigot” is a vice term, and only applies to those whose intolerance and partiality is irrational. To which Kinsella objects:

As for your irrational qualifier, that’s meaningless. Firstly, all action is necessarily rational (at least in the praxeological sense).

I’m well aware of that; but I wasn’t using the word “irrational” to contrast with rationality in the praxeological sense. You might have gleaned it from context; you also might have gleaned it from the fact that I wasn’t, using the word to describe actions at all but rather preferences (which are neither rational nor irrational in the praxeological sense, but can be either rational or irrational in the ordinary language sense of “reasonable” or “defensible”).

So, again: do you have a problem with the definition of a bigot as someone who is irrationally (unreasonably, unjustifiably) partial to their own group and intolerant towards those who differ? If so, what?

As for your own definition:

I would propose an alternate definition for bigot: One who hates other groups of people, who are not initiators of aggression, and actually initiates aggression against them.

This is a stupid definition of “bigot”. The world is full of bigots who have never attacked a soul; I take it that most people who attend Klan rallies, say, have never actually assaulted a Black person or a Catholic. (The days carnival-atmosphere village lynchings are mercifully over; actual violence is now almost exclusively committed by a small hard core.) But if your definition of a “bigot” excludes enthusiastic supporters of the Klan you are not actually defining “bigot” as the word is used by English speakers, but rather something else. And when I called Hoppe a bigot, I was speaking English.

You are taking Hoppe out of the context of the chapter that such was in, which was a chapter addressed to conervatives and to the socially conservative lifestyle. If a conservative culture is to be maintained, then, no, one cannot be tolerant of homosexuals.

This is disingenuous. Hoppe explicitly states in the passage:

They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

A first reading clearly seems to indicate that Hoppe thinks intolerance towards homosexuals—up to and including exile and confiscation of property, if this can be done under the terms of the covenant—is necessary to maintain a libertarian order. Hoppe wants to maintain a libertarian order. Therefore, it seems to follow that Hoppe advocates intolerance towards homosexuals.

Maybe Hoppe only means that they must not be tolerated and must be physically removed if one is to maintain a libertarian order in a “traditionalist” kin-based covenant community, but not necessarily in other communities. If that’s what he means, it’s more than he says. It’s not a bizarro reading, but it’s also not one that will help you out much anyway. Hoppe’s made it very clear here and elsewhere that “traditionalist” kin-based communities are the kind of community he strongly identifies with, and that (in particular) he considers necessary to maintain a libertarian order in the society broadly.

I can see no contextual reason to read Hoppe’s condemnation of tolerance towards homosexual as anything other than (1) in propia voce and (2) applicable to all would-be libertarian communities. If you have any evidence for a different reading, please offer it—in which case we will just move on to some other examples. (Ol’ Hans has supplied us with many.)

Otherwise, let’s just agree that Hoppe advocates intolerance toward homosexuals and move on to the next question.

I also believe that it is the actual actions that Hoppe is saying cannot be tolerated, not the desires.

That’s fine; I mischaracterized Hoppe on this point. “Homosexuality” is usually something that people use to refer to facts about a person’s characteristic sexual desires, but Hoppe is talking about “lifestyles” above. So that’s what he thinks we should be intolerant towards: the “lifestyle” of sleeping with members of the same sex. Fine.

So the question is: is Hoppe’s avowed intolerance towards people who actively sleep with people of the same sex reasonable or unreasonable?

Stephan, do you think that it’s reasonable to be intolerant towards someone solely because she or he sleeps with people of the same sex?

Here’s how Brian Macker learned to stop worrying and love La Migra:

One need only respect others rights insofar as it is reciprocal.

This is obviously false. If someone steals $20 you have the right to use force against her in self-defense in order to recover the $20 and any additional compensation for the time and money lost in recovering it. You do not have the right to steal from her willy-nilly, let alone to enslave her or burn her property or kill her. If you believe that any failure to respect rights allows you to treat the violator as an unperson, then you are not a libertarian; you are just unhinged.

I don’t see Muslim countries tolerating any sort of immigration by non-muslims or even equality for existing non-muslim citizens in their own countries.

This is false: there are in fact substantial populations of immigrant non-Muslims (especially from Europe, the United States, and South Asia) living in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (especially Dubai), Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Albania, etc., and there have been since these countries came into existence. But even if it were true, it would be doubly irrelevant. First, because assaults on your person don’t license reciprocal assaults; they only license the amount of defensive force necessary to recover compensation. Second, because the people you are proposing to exclude do not determine or enforce the immigration policies of “Muslim countries” in the first place, and so aren’t responsible for any of the rights violations that you complain about. (I take it that you’re not only talking about using force to block Saudi princes and the like from entering the country; you’re talking about using force to block ordinary Muslims as a group. If you’re not, then I apologize for misunderstanding you, but you really out to be clearer about your targets.)