I'm an unabased libertarian with a small l. I got to say libertarians are the most misunderstood wing of the republican party. 

Gay rights is a perfect example. 

Republicans hate us because we're so gaga for small government that we don't believe that the government should be in the marriage licensing business! Hell, we even believe polygamy should be legal. And since the government can't and won't get itself out of the marriage license business, then gays are entitled to marriage licenses by virtue of the natural right to equal treatment under the law.

Progressives hate us because while we believe gay marriages should be legal, we're most emphatically against the government preventing the non-violent free exercise of religion. A christian photographer has the inviolable right not to photograph a gay wedding.  

 The same government that can force you to work with a gay man is the same government that can make it illegal for you hire a gay man for the good of the republic.  Remember Jim Crow laws expressly made it illegal for ALL business to work equitably with blacks. The threat of prison was what hard-encoded discrimination. 

Hell, I'm gay and black, here I am saying it's your right as private citizen to discriminate against me.  Yeah an unpopular view. But my view is that your right to discriminate against me because I'm black and gay, is indistinguishable from your right to discriminate against me because I have tattoos. I don't care for the government to play thought police.

I would rather a homophobe christian tell me openly they don't care to bake a cake for my wedding than to get a "surprise" cake on my wedding day. I don't have a fundamental right to his or her services or to even to a wedding cake. Since we are all free, I'll guarantee you, it'll be in someone else's interest to bake for my wedding! Why? There's money to be made! The only way it won't be in someone else's interest to to make me a cake, is if the government made illegal for them to make me cake. 

But you say social sanctions, stigma, death threats and all the like can prevent a citizen from making you a cake.  If social stigma and death threats are such that every single man in town won't make me a cake, then I'll argue that the rule of law won't help you one bit.  Because as soon as that sheriff steps in to force the baker to make you a cake, then the public will rise up against the sheriff. besides a sheriff who has a moral code that runs contrary to every single man in town, doesn't remain sheriff for long. 

Now that's how libertarians are be both for gay marriage and for the free non-violent exercise of religion. 

I would rather a homophobe christian tell me openly they don't care to bake a cake for my wedding than to get a "surprise" cake on my wedding day. I don't have a fundamental right to his or her services or to even to a wedding cake. Since we are all free, I'll guarantee you, it'll be in someone else's interest to bake for my wedding! Why? There's money to be made! The only way it won't be in someone else's interest to to make me a cake, is if the government made illegal for them to make me cake. 

 

That's why it is wrong on so skewed on levels with modern dynamics.

Fundamentally, markets should never have barriers if we want to maintain a free society. However, the personal opinion of people do not mean that they can legally use it as a means of collusion to create barriers of entry in business.

My Libertarianism ran its course years ago, I liked the idea, until I realize it's impossible if individuals start colluding and have too much power over market share dynamics that it would create a system of society that is less free.

Right now in Kansas, the majority opinion is overwhelmingly anti-gay; separate but equal can never exist when the two sides are unevenly matched. When that happens, gay bakers will have problems getting flour for their cake from local distributors, gay business owners will have issues getting skilled labor, and gay people won't get their wedding cake.

Individual freedom is a problem, when there is collusion as in group thinking. I would say government has a role in stopping market and individual collusion as a Conservative, I see the merits of holding law and order.

 

 

My Libertarianism ran its course years ago, I liked the idea, until I realize it's impossible if individuals start colluding and have too much power over market share dynamics that it would create a system of society that is less free.

 

Right now in Kansas, the majority opinion is overwhelmingly anti-gay; separate but equal can never exist when the two sides are unevenly matched. When that happens, gay bakers will have problems getting flour for their cake from local distributors, gay business owners will have issues getting skilled labor, and gay people won't get their wedding cake.

 

Individual freedom is a problem, when there is collusion as in group thinking. I would say government has a role in stopping market and individual collusion as a Conservative, I see the merits of holding law and order.

Well you're a business guy.  You know very well that a lot of business collusion can be traced directly to government policy favoring big guys, connected fellows, incumbents over the little guys. Regulatory capture, onerous licensing and occupations laws, dubious statutes  for "the welfare of the public"  allow business to collude and raise high barriers to entry. I should point you to the court case as a clear example http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/15/brew-city-taxi-wars-the-fight-for-transp

There's a clear market opportunity for business to serve gay weddings. (it's as simple as going to the grocery store to get the flour you need)  If times are so dire that everyone is colluding, I just don't see how government, who is a reflection of the aggregate social attitudes, could help you. 

You are so impatient for social change that you'd rather the government step in to force the outcomes you want. I find that at odds with conservative philosophy, which at the heart of it, at least in the burkean sense, is that change happens slowly and incrementally and naturally from the grassroots level and not by force.

I'm not so impatient for change that i would have the government step in to force my views on everybody else. My belief in the primacy of the individual is just too sacrosanct.(blame the fact that I grew up in a despotic african republic) I can't help the nasty feeling in my stomach when I think of the government who, up till a few decades ago, for the "good of the republic" made it  illegal for business to hire me and then turning around, for the same "good of the republic" makes it illegal to discriminate against me.  It's like my rights are dependents on the whims of a government bureaucrat ... that makes me tremble. We would always be one election cycle away from a "good benevolent" government that would redefine my rights.  In a pluralistic society that's particularly nasty thought. I like to think that the bill of rights guarantees the same rights whether a republican or a democrat is in power.   I particularly hate the idea of protected classes  getting special exemptions against discrimination. 

Now looking around America, I firmly believe that the public opinion isn't so tyrannical that gays are hounded out of the public sphere.  For every business that proclaims their hatred, there are enough businesses proud to state their support.  The fact that the people in the state of kansas are talking and debating the law right now shows that public opinion isn't monolithic.  I'm not worried about gay marriages won't get wedding cakes in Kansas. There was no need for government-enforced equality to make Houston or Atlanta, one of the cities with the largest gay population in the country.

Public opinion is working as it should to correct against homophobic attitudes.  I would rather public opinion do the policing than let the threat of prison do the policing.

I'm just patient, that's all.

Actually Burke was not against using force of arms to stop anarchy and civil disturbances. Burkean conservatism is pragmatism. Small government yes, but practical government and practical solutions for the future are just as important. I dislike how this nation is divided currently by our mindsets and economics.

Problem with your position is that you're assuming equal supply can meet demand. A grocery store in a small Kansas town of 4-5,000 is very different from a major producer like Krogers, Stop and Shop, or other big corporations that exist around the US. We're talking about a state that is very agrarian and in essence to modern standards of an urban society, not as accessssible geographically. There are areas of Kansas that have 15 miles between major brand grocery stores and "local stores".

This is the old fashioned Main street of America that will make it a problem. You cannot discount that a barrier based on religious collusion against homosexuality would not raise economic issues. In addition, without government intervention to stop such collusion in these areas, costs will create a major social and economic divide between Kansas gays versus Kansas straight populations.

Religious freedom does not extend to economic collusion by individuals. Markets do not automatically adjust well when groups try to collude to raise prices, look at OPEC (it is probably the most successful colluded Oligopoly in history)

Now if you assume that stores will open up to serve gays, here's another question, where will the capital and labor come from if local business will collude against you. You could say go to Big Banks and Big Corps that I mentioned like Krogers, but business hates risk with no short term profit (It's sort of the reverse of their love for high risk and high rewards).  Most people can't come up with capital in savings, so capital is needed from banking. Even if you are able to get capital, it will be priced at a higher premium than other similar businesses in the area. Capital barriers of entry are huge issues especially when inventory and receivable delay compound your problems.

Lastly, I mentioned this earlier, Labor. How can you acquire skilled labor in a hostile environment. How many professional people worked for Black establishment during the Jim Crow era south for instance when laws such as this were in effect  Your capital restriction will mean lower salaries/wages, so you will not be able to hire skilled labor on par with other individual businesses.

Collusion has to be fought and killed at its source, it's an insular concept that restricts growth, promotes bigotry, and destroy economic opportunities. Sure, it's individual freedom, but I disagree with this form of freedom.

Reverse the thinking on this, If the state said, we don't want to have women in business instead of gays in order to promote female submission to men and reduce the feminist outreach, is that not a clear danger to free society.

For the United States to grow, economic barriers have to end, you can't have society split into oligopolies. That's where government belongs: cut the bureaucracy and individual aspects of collusion, cut government spending on things that continue this vicious cycle of agrarian closed mindsets (without government subsidies, I bet you half the farms in Kansas would fail this winter), and push for an efficient and strong society.

I am a modernist, a conservative, and a free market advocate. The United States cannot continue pretending that it can be an agrarian society with massive urban centers on each coast. When you remove the agrarian mindset, force the farmers to get into factories and cities to seek jobs, then you get people willing to accept progressive concept like gay equality (not merely rights, equality is basis of a good free society).

I agree with you that federal government is not helping this cause by offering incentives to remain small and isolated dots on a map. However, I also see a place for government authority, in breaking collusive aspects of society. 

Also, small libertarian or small "l" concepts are too ethnocentric. Milton Friedman despite how much I liked him, I have realize over time that he is far too centered on western thought and lacks global perspective.
 

 

The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government.- Milton Friedman

 

Let's see, the Pyramids, Great Wall, and Periclean tower were all done with central governments. The Louvre was created by Napoleon, an autocratic emperor. As for science, hmmm....where did Da Vinci get money for his projects, who paid for Michaeangelo's architecture,...let's add one more for a blast, who funded for Atomic technology to be developed....

A central government has been at the forefront of most major developments in history. A key difference between those eras of breakthroughs/inspiration and now is that leadership was less compromising and more direct. Libertarianism has white washed too much of what this nation needs to grow and be prosperous.

I am mystified. Twice actually First, why do most (all?) Americans choose to self-identify with a political party and/or a specific and always flawed "philosophy" written by dead people? And second, having done so, then feel some tribal obligation to beat the drum for that political party and/or flawed philosophy? This doesn't seem to happen in European countries.

To give you an example, when I go down the pub a political issue may come up. But people don't then divide like the Red Sea into "Reds" and "Blues" and then proceed to engage in a proxy battle for their respective tribes.  But Americans seem to revel in this. And, worse, every aspect of life seems to have been divided along party political lines.

Why not just make up your own minds on each issue and see the world through your own eyes and using your own intellect, rather than those of some feeble minded self-advancing corrupt bunch of back-stabbing incompetents who probably never held down a real job in their lives?

I am mystified. Twice actually First, why do most (all?) Americans choose to self-identify with a political party and/or a specific and always flawed "philosophy" written by dead people? And second, having done so, then feel some tribal obligation to beat the drum for that political party and/or flawed philosophy? This doesn't seem to happen in European countries.

 

To give you an example, when I go down the pub a political issue may come up. But people don't then divide like the Red Sea into "Reds" and "Blues" and then proceed to engage in a proxy battle for their respective tribes.  But Americans seem to revel in this. And, worse, every aspect of life seems to have been divided along party political lines.

 

Why not just make up your own minds on each issue and see the world through your own eyes and using your own intellect, rather than those of some feeble minded self-advancing corrupt bunch of back-stabbing incompetents who probably never held down a real job in their lives?

Much more fun to compete and fight

America by and large is a divided nation, since it's birth and founding to its civil War, and today.

Unlike Europe or Asia with Kings or with Emperors, no one has actually tamed the United States under one power despite how close certain groups have come

Without that taming, Americans have no real perspective to create what you describe for political apathy. The United states is still battling it out; the problem is no one is going to win in the US as long as their other side remains. Also, due to social constraints and a sort of self-repression, no one is willing to take up an actual fight in fear of repercussions. In the last few decades, American people have become more reactionary than active participants within our own nation. The outside world might say Americans are more active in foreign affairs, but look deeper at the national core, less than 50% of Americans usually vote, unless they react to a new piece of news like "Terrorism", "Gay Marriage", or "Obamacare".

There's too many repressed conflicting views, too many divergent ideas, and too many antagonistic issues.  

Thanks for that analysis. Here's an outsider's perspective:

It seems you're tied yourselves up in "philosophical knots" and are wasting your nation's effort, talent, skills and lives going round and round in circles trying to tighten those philosophical knots further around the necks of your political / philosophical opponents until they've been throttled. It's like that scene in an episode of the original Star Trek - I forget which - where the "good" Captain Kirk is locked in battle with his "evil" counterpart, trapped in some kind of dimensional bubble where neither can ever win and they'll just fight each other for eternity. Such a waste of effort

At the heart of this seems to be an antipathy by so many Americans to the very notion of society. We are social animals for goodness sake It took a while to get there but European countries seem pretty much to have at long last accepted that life is lived in society and to have a healthy society needs "give and take". And for this to work it needs reasonable compromise when the immovable individual rights to say and do as you please meet the irresistible rights of others to move about freely in society, to get and hold jobs and not be abused and discriminated against because they're the wrong colour, love the wrong person or worship the wrong God or no God.

Seems to me that's the only rational and practicable approach

 

Thanks for that analysis. Here's an outsider's perspective:

 

It seems you're tied yourselves up in "philosophical knots" and are wasting your nation's effort, talent, skills and lives going round and round in circles trying to tighten those philosophical knots further around the necks of your political / philosophical opponents until they've been throttled. It's like that scene in an episode of the original Star Trek - I forget which - where the "good" Captain Kirk is locked in battle with his "evil" counterpart, trapped in some kind of dimensional bubble where neither can ever win and they'll just fight each other for eternity. Such a waste of effort

 

At the heart of this seems to be an antipathy by so many Americans to the very notion of society. We are social animals for goodness sake It took a while to get there but European countries seem pretty much to have at long last accepted that life is lived in society and to have a healthy society needs "give and take". And for this to work it needs reasonable compromise when the immovable individual rights to say and do as you please meet the irresistible rights of others to move about freely in society, to get and hold jobs and not be abused and discriminated against because they're the wrong colour, love the wrong person or worship the wrong God or no God.

 

Seems to me that's the only rational and practicable approach

 

Not bad Zombie, I kind of agree, except for the Euro-Centric approach:

European Civilization is not that old, your civilization's age is less than fifth of Asian Civilizations that predate you by thousands of years.

Far Eastern Asians have a different way of dealing with conflicts among nations, which is just as fair and even more developed than European concepts:

if you don't agree with me and I don't agree with you; we offer peace, then when you don't have any defenses up, chop off your legs and feed the rest to swine Europeans may think of this as ungamely and deceitful, Asian politicians see it as a win by any means necessary is a win, if you don't like it, we will just rewrite the history books to make it look better

Sure, we have peaceful sides as well, some of us adore nature, and even believe in progressive social concepts thousands of years ahead of anyone else. However, I think Europeans Civilization focus too much on the peaceful side and forget about the aggressive side of Philosophies. As the Chinese shared a concept of Yin-Yang/Passive and Aggressive philosophy with the world, its basic principle is a "firm" and "certain" duality that all human beings cannot escape Peace or Aggression, because it is part of life. European politicians have not become enlightened by peace, they have grown afraid of aggression.

Asian politicians don't fight for God or Glory, because there is nothing about God or Glory that really gives you anything in the long term. We fight over money, resources, and land, because there is more value from what is in front of you that can be worked, built upon, and cultivated than a thought or belief in a higher force. Our aggression is not based on "-ism" (although, practical pretense would usually mean a western "-ism" must be invoked), the basis is on simple desire and want. Whether, it's Korea, Japan, China, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand,...a lot of extreme examples of national politics driven by "cui bono" over peaceful coexistence can be found

Yet, on the flip side, you have people desiring peace, a rejection of such excessive consumption or desire, and a simple life. There's those elements too in Eastern practice that balance off the more covetous nature. However, it's influence ebbs and flows with time, so when it fails to gain audience, the covetous nature returns and more wars are fought.

Why do you think Buddha wanted to leave worldly issues behind

It's a different evolution of thought without Christianity being as large a player in Asian politics. I don't think Europeans can completely understand that kind of mindset, because despite how far Christianity has changed and declined in European life, it is still part of the foundations of your ethics and morals.