Readers join the thread:
Your response to Chait and Smith was good, but missed something. There are two layers of government in the US, of course, and I believe it is the responsibility of the Feds to compel non-discrimination when a state’s laws are discriminatory or designed to foster discrimination. The 14th Amendment saw to that, and nicely so, although examples such as DOMA, which overule state governments' attempt to give equal rights to their gay citizens, demonstrate that the Feds are just as willing to impose discrimination.
Another writes:
I think you almost entirely dodged the thrust of Chait's argument, but I want to focus on the part in which you write, "And that is the core difference between power exerted by the state and power exerted by non-state actors: the former is ultimately backed by physical force deployed by the government."
Let's accept the claim that this should be the "core difference" for a moment. In what sense is, say, the State of Alabama not a "state" which is able to exert power backed by physical force? Do police batons and fire hoses count? Why, in the United States, do libertarians so often seek to limit the power of the Federal state so as to clear the way for a return to unchecked State violations of human rights and civil liberties? If we accept libertarian values, what does this accomplish? (And don't tell me "you can move if you don't like Alabama." You can move if you don't like the U.S., too. That's no argument at all.)
A real libertarian should be just as concerned about a State government's infringement of individual liberty as the Federal government's. There should be no distinction. Period. Instead, for some strange reason, American libertarians always rail against Federal power and champion the cause of unfettered State power. Why do you think American libertarians historically champion the cause of unfettered State power in the name of "individual liberty"?
My reader is right. I don't support unfettered state power to ignore, say, equal protection. I'd favor more libertarian policies in every state. The point is that you are more free the more accountable your government is, and states are closer to their own voters than the federal government. Again, the struggle between freedom and justice is a real trade-off at times, and it would be helpful if both sides acknowledged that. Another quotes me:
The social power of homophobia and hetero-sexism in a free culture is crushing. I oppose it; and recognize it. I have spent a great deal of my life pushing back culturally and intellectually and morally against it. But I do not want to compel it into submission. I want to persuade it into toleration.
There's a fundamental problem here. You propose to use reasonable persuasion to combat hatred. But hatred is not reasonable. The hatred of bigotry is based upon fear and ignorance, and those who cling to bigotry are impervious to facts or to reasonable argument.
Really? This is where contemporary liberalism is actually illiberal. Twenty five years ago, the gay left told me exactly the same: don't even bother making arguments; they all hate us. And in one generation of active persuasion, we moved the needle faster than any civil rights movement in history. Forgive me for thinking that reason and ideas matter in a free society; and that they should be our first tools for change. Another:
You wrote, "Because I believe in civil equality as guaranteed by the Constitution, I insist on absolute neutrality by the government, which is supposed to represent all citizens, but I would allow for private hostility, bigotry, hatred and even discrimination in civil society." Does that mean you don't like Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in PRIVATE places of public accommodation like hotels, restaurants, etc.? Is it really your view that those places should be able to refuse service to blacks, muslims, or whomever without consequence?
Public accommodation is different than private association – and should be coereced not to discriminate. But I wholeheartedly support the right of, say, the Boy Scouts to discriminate against gays, or the Saint Patrick's Parade to do so, as long as they do not rely on government funding or facilities. One more reader:
As a 24-year-old I've been a Ron Paul supporter since my college days. I'm hispanic, so I would think this racist stuff should bother me in a country where racism is mostly aimed at blacks and hispanics. But that stuff doesn't bother me because I've learned that most people have and continue to battle prejudices within ourselves, and I'm much more comfortable with a presidential candidate that recognizes his past failures and current prejudices, actively changing his behavior and beliefs because he loves others enough to change himself to improve the world for everyone around him.
And Paul's track record proves that his changed behavior is sincere and not just a scheme for votes. He's always been sincere and honest except for how he handled the racist newsletter stuff. I can look past that moment because it must be rather embarrassing to deal with the same stupid mistake for the entirety of your career. It's old news that has always been and always will be an issue for Paul. More importantly, he recognizes EVERYONE's rights despite the fact that his upbringing, or whatever, taught him differently.
The Dish 