Ah. Free association is what it’d be called by libertarians. I see what you mean now.
Was he against government-forced segregation?
I’m kind of bad in these situations (from a libertarian perspective) because I tend to refuse to worry about things I like the outcome of.
If you and I had incredibly similar views on how people should behave, and we both put time and money into achieving those outcomes, but I didn’t support using violence (libertarian reductionist view of government), does that mean I support things I’m ostensibly fighting personally?
A principled stance is a principled stance.
Or a fanatical one.
All the people who wanted to maintain segregation (i.e. Rand’s father) had principled stances. Should we admire them?
What principle would lead someone to support segregation?
In Rand’s father’s case? Libertarian nonsense about not being forced by the big bad government to stop with the ‘whites only’ bullshit.
Ah. Free association is what it’d be called by libertarians. I see what you mean now.
Was he against government-forced segregation?
I’m kind of bad in these situations (from a libertarian perspective) because I tend to refuse to worry about things I like the outcome of.
If you and I had incredibly similar views on how people should behave, and we both put time and money into achieving those outcomes, but I didn’t support using violence (libertarian reductionist view of government), does that mean I support things I’m ostensibly fighting personally?
He would have opposed the Civil Rights Act “because of the property rights element.” See? Principled stand.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/91287-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-1964-civil-rights-act/
I’m talking pure theory/ethics now. What I’d support politically will vary.
I agree with free association and, to some degree, property rights. I don’t think my “yeah, fuck racists” stance is principled.