Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Abuse of power

Here we go again:

There are several problems with her line of argument:

1) To begin with, hypotheticals cut both ways. It's child's play to reverse her hypotheticals. For instance:

i) Suppose a woman fled Yugoslavia after her relatives were raped and/or murdered by Muslims. She comes to America, where she runs a motel. Suppose Muslims want to book her motel for a Sharia convention. Should she be prosecuted if she refuses?

ii) Suppose a skinhead goes into a tattoo parlor run by a black tattoo artist, demanding that he get a swastika tattooed on his arm. Should the black proprietor be prosecuted if he refuses?

iii) Suppose Wesboro Baptists offer to pay a homosexual photographer to film one of their "God hates fags" protests. Should he be prosecuted if he refuses?

2) It doesn't occur to Kirsten that there's a little thing called capitalism. The free market. If a business refuses to supply a product or service that's in demand, that's a business opportunity for a competitor to fill the gap. Paying customers will take their business elsewhere. 

3) It doesn't occur to Kirsten that there are tradeoffs between liberty and tyranny. Sure, you can one-sidedly focus on individuals who abuse their freedom, but what about governments that abuse their power? In fact, the Obama administration is a perfect illustration. The harm that individuals can do is trivial compared to the harm the state can do. 


  1. The Westboro example is a good counter-example, I think.

    As for the skinhead example, the courts would probably retort, no the black proprietor should not be prosecuted because skinheads don't constitute a protected class. (See the New Mexico Supreme Court case concerning Elane Photography).

  2. Liberals have no common sense or real knowledge. Everyday I become more libertarian as I see those who claim to want freedom eat away at others.