Monday, 26 July 2010

The delights of being a libertarian

Amused and slightly inspired by this expression of frustration, I'm amused to point out that being a libertarian means:

  • I detest the fact that some men force some women to wear a burkha
  • I support the right of women who want to wear a burkha to wear a burkha
  • I support the right of people to say that wearing a burkha is an offensive thing, even though I don't think it is
  • I support the right of people to say that wearing a burkha is a good thing, even though I don't think it is

Is that all clear?

10 comments:

Roger Thornhill said...

And not forgetting the right of people to not wish to fully interact with those wearing it, just as those wearing it have shown their desire to limit their interaction with others.


Exception: when attempting to access monopolistic State run services enforced by coercion. Example: talking to one's MP.



wv: unmongly IKYN - Obo, have you seeded the WV with your vocab?

Philip said...

Sadly a lot of people just can't follow libertarianism's logical path. They might get the basic idea of free speech for example, but they often forget that freedom also extends to people that didn't like said speech.

I loath burqas, I loath the idea behind burqas and if owned a store I'd probably want to keep people with burqas from entering. That's just my personal preference though.

The government has no more of a right to tell someone they can't wear a burqas than they have a right telling me I'd have to do business with people wearing burqas.

I want a right to mock Islam if I feel the need. I also want Muslims to have the right to do what ever stupid shit they might feel the need to do, provided the only harm they are inflicting is on themselves.

Ross said...

"Exception: when attempting to access monopolistic State run services enforced by coercion. Example: talking to one's MP."

How is that enforced by coercion? No one is obliged to talk to MPs, nothing MPs do in their surgeries is anything that couldn't be done by 1000 other organisations (Citizens Advice Bureau for example).

No one is obliged to see their MP and MPs aren't obliged to see their consituents (although most will do so anyway).

Anonymous said...

Don't forget possibly the most important one. The argument via the backdoor that people jump to banning the Burqua in the same way that they ban incest by saying it's rape...

We do not support the right of people to use force against others, even their spouses, to make them wear a piece of clothing.

if women being forced to wear it is the problem, we already have that one on the "bad" list anyway.

Roger Thornhill said...

@Ross

Try to set up your own parallel House of Commons and vote in your own MPs to pass laws over you and reject those laws passed by the existing bunch.

See how far you get.

The State is coercive as it is an enforced monopoly. As a Minarchist, I believe we have yet to establish a less-bad alternative, though I live in hope. Until then, the less-bad is all we have.

Anonymous said...

How about the least bad?

Advocating no aggression!

John Whitley said...

Since when do you have to be a libertarian? I ain't, yet I can still comfortably agree with those four points.

The Grim Reaper said...

Obo said: "I support the right of women who want to wear a burkha to wear a burkha."

What about a man's right to wear a burkha?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Yep, I support that too. Although curiously, I see very few Muslim men who are that worried about getting women moist.

The Grim Reaper said...

It's ever so telling...