printRonald Bailey of Reason Magazine details the reaction of “Conservative” blogger Ann Althouse to a debate about the infringements by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on property rights and freedom of association. The discussion took place at a Liberty Fund colloquium.
Broadly speaking, the topic falls perfectly within the purview of the conference, which aims to “shed light on the role of liberty in human life,” to quote Bailey. Speaking specifically, this conference tackled the role of federalism in freedom. Read Bailey’s most reasonable entry here. And follow the links to Althouse’s response.
(Althouse, incidentally, is competing for the title “Grande Conservative Blogress Diva,” the sort of communal enforcement bloggers engage in, much like mainstream media. They too are always awarding their own for conformity. I digress, but, in any event, that’s the string of honorifics explained.)
I too attended a Liberty Fund colloquium in the UK earlier this year, but none of the participants dissolved into a puddle, a la Althouse, over disagreement. I had a jolly good time with some brilliant (and beautifully spoken) Englishmen and (two) women.
As for tearing up and labeling as racists proponents of states’ rights or advocates of freedom of association, as Althouse apparently did, why, this only indicates Liberty Fund is not selecting its participants very carefully. Althouse reached for the smelling salts instead of arguing her case. How feeble. How Peggy Noonan.
Can there be any doubt that civil rights laws coerce individuals, often against their better judgment, into involuntary associations? Can one deny that under antidiscrimination law employers have lost a great deal of control over their businesses? Is it not the duty of reasonable, freedom-loving people to explore the effects on liberty of such legislation?
As I told the conservative Comanche, Dr. David Yeagley, “race is intricately and ineluctably tied to freedom because we live under a state which circumscribes liberty by enforcing codes of hiring, firing, renting, and money lending, among others. In a truly free society, the kind we once enjoyed, one honors the right of the individual to associate and disassociate, invest and disinvest, speak and misspeak at will. Race has become such an issue because we labor under nominal property ownership, and are subject to what is flippantly called political correctness, but is in fact codified and legalized theft and coercion.”
Althouse accuses libertarians of the sin of abstraction. If anything, Althouse’s formulations rely on the idea that America is merely a proposition, bound to abstract ideals, rather than a community of flesh-and-blood individuals, each with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
Update: James Wilson (scroll down to the comments) contends that Althouse’s apoplexy over the exercise of individual liberty is a hangover from “the influence of the Christian Right on conservatism, [whereby] government’s role is to stamp out evil, pure and simple. And since racism is evil, the federal government must do something about it, just like it must fight drugs, pornography, obesity, etc.”
I’m not convinced. I would say (as I did in this January 29, 2003 column) that, neoconservatives, being “‘illiterate leftists posturing as conservatives’ have, largely, helped make Martin Luther King Jr. more important, historically, than the Founding Fathers. They’ve also helped conflate the messages of the two solitudes, even though the Founders’ liberty” is unrelated to the egalitarianism promoted by the commie King.
Quote from a viewer’s comment on Althouse’s blog:
“Any libertarian would have a hard time arguing against the government acting in the public interest, after all, isn’t the public good the reason we have a government run police and fire department? Sometime government regulation is very necessary in order for business to serve the public good. Study the history of early commercial radio and the FCC at its creation (chaos created by stations competing against each other on the same frequency in the same market, false advertising and fraud were abundant) then you understand that some govrnment interference is vital to the country as a whole. And if you think about it, our government came about through a process that intended to decipher what system would be best to serve the citizenry of the country, i.e. the public good. Yet the establishment of a government, by that very act of establishing guidlines, encroaches on the hard line libertarian views of personal freedom.
Hard line libertarianism = little government = Articles of Confederation = chaos.”
Something libertarians need to seriously consider because the libertarian position is at war with itself.
This is why I dont indentify as a conservative. Conservatives, to me, are watered down liberals. They both have similiar agendas in many ways.
Conservatives always say they’re against the state, and then come up with crap like this.
with friends like these…
SSH-AU-N002:
Most of the things he says about “too much liberty = chaos” are pure run-o-the-mill stuff people hurl at libertarianism. None of the “examples” he provides are anything more than loose associations. So before FCC there was chaos? And what exactly is “order”? The cartelization created by FCC – which is bound to distort real supply and demand, and thereby create worse chaos? That is, the dubious vision, and the blind will of a handful of elites – like Althouse – imposed on the rest of us at gunpoint?
You would think that adults understand that since we’re free in our acts, this means not every split second moment of our lives can possibly be calm and idyllic tranquility. Libertarianism is about a “process” not “ends.” Chaos, disorderliness, unwanted outcomes, ugly emotions and treatment of humans–these are all part of LIFE. And there ain’t nothin’ the Gummint can do about it.
Unfortunately, Althouse seems to subscribe to the “womanly” perspective (see Fred Reed on this here: http://www.fredoneverything.net/SurvivalSchools.shtml), putting the cart of “security” before the horse of “liberty.”
That a restaurant might profit exactly because of excluding a certain type of customer is the heart of the matter: liberty is being able to choose, and “dislike” is as much a choice as “like.”
Only children expect to be loved by all, and unconditionally.
Freedom is “authority over your acts,” therefore being “responsible” for them, period. If others do not want to associate with you due to your private habits, then keep that private life to yourself. If others do not want you in their restaurant due to your race (please, not “skin color”; the least significant detail of race is dermal properties), [nice usage] then what exactly do you want to achieve by forcing yourself on them by using government intervention? Go build your own, and associate with those who *choose* to associate with you. Enough of the “racist” accusation alread!
“We” never enjoyed a truly free society. At least not if within “we” you include black people. Rather, the law lurched from state-enforced segregation to state-enforced integration with no time in the libertarian middle. Libertarians should be for complete freedom of association, meaning no laws at any level forcing either integration or segregation outside of publicly-owned facilities. This has never been enjoyed in America.
Is this distinction important? I think so. Consider Althouse’s views on the matter; in her mind, libertarians are for the old regime, meaning, Jim Crow.
I don’t agree with Ann Althouse on anything about State’s Rights, being the Texan that I am. That said, I thought her first post was more ambiguous than insulting to the others who attended this Liberty Fund gathering. In fact, I didn’t think one way or the other about the libertarians who attended.
In light of that, I thought that Ron Bailey’s post was totally out of proportion and in very bad taste–and downright cruel- regardless of the question as to whether Ann acted appropriately at the event. She didn’t start out describing others at the event in language like this: “When chatting with her over cocktails, she seemed pleasant enough if a bit vague.”
I’m just a hick from the sticks and no intellectual–but Bailey’s post was just uncalled for in my estimation. For being supposedly so civilized, intellectuals can sure act like asses toward others. Between Ronald’s post and Ann’s response–it seems to me that this event was populated by self-important jerks!
Maybe the arguments Bailey made were “reasonable”, but what I mainly got out of his post was that he sure likes to gossip.
Gossip? About her being airheaded?
Have you read her comments? Maybe a martini isn’t needed for her to act dumb.
Seemed sober enough when she made ’em.
“Have you read her comments?”
Do you mean the comments that Bailey attributes to her? Yes, and, assuming she really made them–I don’t agree with her. If there are some other comments SHE published that I didn’t see that justify Bailey’s response to what I thought was an innocuous post on her behalf, please give me the link. Maybe I’m wrong and she did deserve his response.
I think that Ron Bailey’s entire post is a big gossip-fest meant to put Ann in a terrible light. In the absence of any public statement other than her Dec. 15 post, I find it to be out of proportion.
One thing that really bugged me about the first blog posting that Althouse wrote about the incident is her casual suggestion that anyone who really believes any idea is a “true believer.” I have a note about it at the link you see here.
This is the influence of the Christian Right on conservatism. Gone are the days when conservatives used nuanced arguments advocating government restraint. Today, the position seems to be that government’s role is to stamp out evil, pure and simple. And since racism is evil, the federal government must do something about it, just like it must fight drugs, pornography, obesity, etc.