. . . is that it’s not even libertarian. Take this column on Helen Thomas for example. Our author complains about Ms Thomas’ quick dismissal. According to our author, her dismissal is dangerously close to prohibitions on hate speech.
Of course, our author is very wrong. The key word is "prohibitions." There are no prohibitions against Ms Thomas being an ass. However, private citizens won’t stand for it. Hearst is free to employ Ms Thomas and lose most of its readership and credibility.
My point is that Thomas’ firing is a perfect example of how libertarianism should work. The state did not intervene to pass a law that prevented news agencies from employing people with idiotic opinions. Ms Thomas was not thrown in jail. She was expelled by public opinion. Justly so.
It’s instructive to compare this episode with Rand Paul’s comments on the Civil Rights Act. Many libertarians (including some at Reason) sided against Paul. Of course, Dr Paul’s preferred method of ending segregation in the South was the same method that was just used to end Ms Thomas’ career. Thus, combining these two episodes, we see certain authors at Reason siding in favor of state solutions to "problems" and against private solutions to "problems." Libertarian my ass.
I’ll quote one of my favorite passages from Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
The restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of the left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives.
Ms Thomas’ firing is a perfect example of Hoppe’s discrimination working. It’s the best example of libertarian solutions to a problem that we’ve seen in years. A true libertarian magazine would trumpet Ms Thomas’ dismissal.
[...] The Problem with Mainstream Libertarianism and Economic [...]
Indeed, people prattle on around the world about “free speech, press and association” implying some sort of free-for-all actions. In reality such “freedoms” are the types that Libertarians are for: freedom from government interference. There’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution forbidding private censorship and private discrimination hence getting in trouble for yelling “fire!” in a private theatre is perfectly okay. Nowadays a lot of people seem think “freedom of speech and press” means you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, including in priate residences and private businesses, and if you can’t afford to have your message heard then people have to provide the funds so you can, etc.
Radical induvidualists of the world, unite!
I don’t know why that never works.
[...] Foseti – “The Problem with Mainstream Libertarianism” [...]