An Oxymoron: A Libertarian Who Supports Anti-Discrimination Laws

I’ve noticed that many supposed advocates of free speech, individual rights, property rights and business owners’ rights, tend to fall conspicuously silent when government tyranny in these areas comes cloaked in words like “anti-discrimination”, “hate crime laws”, and “fairness”. It’s easy to defend a man and his rights when he’s friendly and he says nice things and he’s kind to everyone. But see how many are still standing when the man is harder to like and he says bad and controversial things with nasty and disagreeable language. These fair weather “liberty lovers” are nothing but frauds and cowards. They’re like a guard dog that barks at girl scouts but puts his tail between his legs when a burglar breaks in through the window. They’re like a roof that’ll give you shade but collapse and crush you if it the wind kicks up. They’re like a guy who says he “loves the outdoors” but won’t walk to his mailbox if it’s drizzling. These self professed lovers of liberty don’t really love liberty. They like it sometimes when it comes in a certain, specific, particular and precise form, but hate it if it sways slightly to the left or the right.

And because the flame of freedom has been left in the hands of a bunch of spineless wusses, we end up in a country where utter insanity reigns supreme. Perfect case in point: Alec Baldwin is being INVESTIGATED by the POLICE for INSULTING someone. This is just one recent example of many that demonstrates how ridiculous “hate crime” statutes are. I use this example because Baldwin is a celebrity and we all know things are more important when they happen to a famous person. Baldwin, a typical Hollywood liberal tool who I don’t like or respect, allegedly lashed out at a paparazzi photographer who was waiting in the bushes to take a picture of him walking out of a building (thank God the paparazzi was there to document that momentous occasion). Alec, strangely not a fan of being stalked by the gutter press, verbally attacked the photographer, who happened to be a black guy, and called him a “crack head” and a “drug dealer” and then used, apparently, a racial slur or two. In a sane society, that would be the end of the story. Two grown men got into an argument. One of them said some really rude things. End of incident. Let’s move on.

But no. This is America in the year 2013. We have to literally make a federal case of it. The NYPD announced a few days ago that they are investigating the case to see if a “hate crime” occurred. Again, one grown adult insulted another grown adult. He used a racial slur. That’s not good. You shouldn’t do that. In fact, you shouldn’t use slurs at all, racial or otherwise. Slurs are rude and hurtful. I don’t personally buy into the arbitrary and ridiculous Slur Hierarchy we seem to have established, where the dreaded racial slur is the ultimate offense against humanity while simply, say, calling someone a “worthless, disgusting, piece of human filth” is designated as far less offensive. But no matter how you rank the slurs they all share one characteristic: THEY ARE WORDS. Also, they’re all hateful. How could a racial epithet be a “hate crime” but me saying “I hate you, you’re a scum bag” is not?

Regardless, we’ve lost our minds if we don’t see a problem with sending in the FBI because somebody was insulted. We’re helpless if we don’t see the absurdity of calling up the CSI unit to run forensics on a tense verbal exchange. Should we make a perimeter around the scene with police caution tape and draw a chalk outline of a speech bubble on the pavement? I wonder what the police scanner code is for “hurt feelings”? “Yeah we’ve got a 159 in progress, I repeat a 159, suspect is being a big meanie pants, I repeat we’ve got a big fat meanie here, witnesses report name calling, possible use of offensive hand gesture, we’re gonna need back up.”

Do you see the problem here? Are you willing to speak out against it even if the brainless peanut gallery will call you a bigot simply for questioning the wisdom of putting the government in charge of policing our emotions? We’ve taken actions and even non-actions that are not inherently criminal and made them a crime by outlawing the assumed THOUGHTS and FEELINGS behind them. But this doesn’t just apply to hate crime laws. As you know, it’ illegal for employers to “discriminate” while hiring. Of course this doesn’t even make sense because the word “discrimination” simply means “making a distinction”. In other words, all employers discriminate every day, if they didn’t they wouldn’t be able to run a business, much less generally function in the world. We all discriminate. We all make distinctions. I bet you’ve made 5000 distinctions today already, you filthy racist. But, once again, the government takes a concept that is not innately criminal and makes it a crime IN SOME CASES if you’re discriminating for reasons THEY find unacceptable. Again, where are the liberty advocates?

There are certainly forms of discrimination that I find morally objectionable. But why should I or anyone be allowed to impose that moral judgement on a business owner? If a man opens up a business and decides he doesn’t want to hire any damned Irish Catholics like myself, why shouldn’t he have the freedom to make that choice? Yes, it would be morally wrong. Yes, my feelings would be hurt. Yes, he would be a very rude and prejudiced dude. So what? It’s his business, not mine. I have the freedom to get ticked off and tell the whole world that Billy’s Bakery down the street hates Catholics (which, for many people, would be more of an advertisement than an accusation).

Look, either side with liberty or side against it. But no more straddling the fence. Make up your mind. Just don’t call yourself a “libertarian” or tell me about how much you hate the government and then go hide under the bed when the State levies regulations on your mind through these Orwellian “hate crime” and “anti-discrimination” laws.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to An Oxymoron: A Libertarian Who Supports Anti-Discrimination Laws

  1. Stephen R says:

    Somebody should make some “Free Alec” stickers. 😉

  2. Cylar says:

    Nice. And here I was thinking that I was tired of seeing Alec Baldwin in all those commercials for the Capital One credit card.

  3. ” Should we make a perimeter around the scene with police caution tape and draw a chalk outline of a speech bubble on the pavement?”

    I literally snorted Ice water out my nose I started laughing so hard at that sentence! ROFL!

Comments are closed.