To discriminate, or not to discriminate? That is the question.
…That is to say, this is the distortion of reality presented by a modern media.
Support gay sex or face gay sex in prison.
The argument is typically framed as one side discriminating the other. That this is an unsatisfactory situation goes without saying. Of course it’s bad to discriminate. Now salivate when I ring the bell.
More “nuanced” commentators will follow this up by exploring the root cause of such terrible and horrible discrimination. This usually amounts to finger pointing: religion, bigotry, homosexuality, liberalism, the State, etc. That these things are bad and should be avoided goes without saying. Of course.
With a narrative thus reinforced, the reader returns to his/her/zir normal life feeling enlightened, content. The status quo is maintained.
The status quo.
The real argument that many would prefer to avoid here is that both sides inevitably discriminate, that discrimination was going to happen, had already happened regardless of feels. That’s kind of the point behind human action. Action requires values, and values are hierarchical and unequal. To make a choice is to differentiate, the very definition of discrimination. Human action is discriminatory by definition.
This should be considered a fundamental plank of libertarian doctrine. The anti-discrimination “libertarians” would probably do well to, I dunno, read and apply libertarian ideology at some point. This may come as a surprise, but Libertarianism was not conceived as a blank canvas to project your liberal-tainted feels upon. You hear me, Token Libertarian Girl?
Julie Borowski has actually gone so far as to assert that freer markets would accommodate the acceptance of diverse lifestyles (including intergenerational love and God only knows what else the diseased modern mind can think up), that mean ole’ racists and freakophobes would be run out of business. That free markets are inherently progressive and accommodating (utopian), and not apathetic and varying/chaotic (human).
According to her argument, to truly embrace free markets would lead to the rational end of bigotry. Which sounds great to those who think libertarianism can cancel out liberalism. Except that those liberals who desire rights (privileges, powers, force) against discrimination desire the annihilation of human action, human nature… Humanity itself. The best “libertarian” argument for such a goal is to suggest that humanity is naturally moving towards the ending of human action. Julie can make silly faces all she wants, but I don’t recall Rothbard, Hazlitt or Mises ever being anti-natalist.
If Julie would quit care bear staring the webcam long enough to actually reflect on her rhetoric, she would realize that she’s not channeling Mises, but Marx. Her argument is worse than Marx, in fact, for it anticipates a withering away of both man and State.
Instead of trying to pander to mainstream liberals, Token Libertarian Girl should consider maybe jumping ship and joining them. She would probably have a better time of things voting Democrat.