The premise in a "free" society is "You can do whatever you want."
That is the premise in a state of absolute and complete anarchy. E.g., cave-man days. That is not in any way what I supported. I, like all libertarians, firmly believe in the non-aggression pact. This means that no-one has the right to initiate violence against anyone else. I don't have the right to beat the crap out of someone because don't like them; nor do I have the right to steal from them because don't like them. Both of these acts constitute property violations.
I am, however, entitled not to invite someone into my house if I don't like them, not to offer my patronage as a consumer to someone I don't like, not to offer my services as a producer to someone I don't like, not to work for someone I don't like, or not to hire someone I don't like. I am entitled to do all of these things, however idiotic and illogical be the reason I don't like the person. That is because none of these things constitute violence against anyone else's property in either themselves or their property.
You have the right to one thing: your rightfully acquired or homesteaded property. You naturally have a property right in your body and anything you pay for, or homestead. However, you do not have a right to be "liked" by me. You do not have a right to be invited into my house. You do not have a right to work for me. You do not have a right for me to work for you. You do not have a right to buy something from me, nor do you have a right to sell something to me. Your own ideas a clearly backwards, even by your own logic. You never hear liberals saying that potential employees should have to decide which job they take on a non-discriminatory basis? No, it is granted, even by liberals, that those seeking employment can be as bigotted as they want to in choosing who to work for.
Of course, there are economic consequences to being idiotic. If you refuse to hire black people, or to work for them, or to buy from them, or to sell to them, you will face financial consequences, and market-share consequences, or possibly price-consequences. The black man that you didn't hire may go to a competing company, and his excellent leadership may eat away at your market share. The black man you refused to sell something do will take his patronage to another store, and will never return to yours; you have lost not only the immediate transaction, but also a customer (permanently), to a competitor. Furthermore, he will tell others of the way you treat blacks, and you may very well lose an entire market to your competitors. The black many you refused to buy from may have been offering the best product at the lowest price.
All of your further misconceptions flow from your fundamental non-understanding of rights.
your exercise of this freedom impinges on the exercise of another's freedom
Freedom is different from property rights, which is what I'm talking about. If I stop someone from bashing my skull in, you can say I'm impinging on his freedom. You can't, however, say that I'm violating his property rights, as I am entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect my own property rights.
When society at large marginalizes a group of people short...it is the larger society who has made the first act of bad faith. The larger society has broken the social contract with the smaller group or individual
Society does not do anything. Society does not make decisions. Society is simply an abstraction to describe a system of individuals interacting -- individuals who make their own decisions, of their own free will. It is individuals who make decisions, not society.
Now that we've cleared that up, let's talk about the decisions individuals make when they marginalize a certain group of people, because that's what we're talking about here. When an individual chooses to treat another individual -- or group of individuals -- badly, that is his choice, and there is nothing wrong with that. No-one person or group has the right to be treated nicely and looked upon kindly by anyone. You do, however, have the right to your property (natural property rights), as I said before. And, quite frankly, forcing someone to be nice to, or like, another person or group of people is a violation of that person's rights. To truely do so, you would have to excercise Orwellian mind-control over that person, violating his right to his own person; to simply generate the physical appearance of such, you would have to violate his right to his external property.
Your absolute freedom means my absolute subjugation
I think that I spoke relatively clearly. I did not advocate absolute freedom. The closest one can get to absolute freedom is a state of complete lawlessness (e.g., primitive man), which really isn't all that free at all, since someone else can imprison you, or rape you, or kill you. More realistically, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. No man has, or can ever have, absolute freedom. The only way you have absolute freedom is if you are a god.
What I am talking about is not absolute freedom, but the absolute right to your own property, both in your person and in external items which you rightfully acquire or homestead.
If society at large agrees...to persecute one group of people...then it becomes the responsibility of society at large to rectify that act of bad faith.
"Society at large" does not agree to do anything. Certain individuals choose to partake in certain actions; to say that "society" chooses is to deny the free will of every person and declare him a cog in the "Leviathon Society".
Certain individuals within society can act unkindly to other individuals. A Christian can choose not to allow a Wiccan in his house, even if it's raining outside. This may not be nice -- it may not be moral -- but it is the right of that Christian. No-one has the right to step on anyone elses property without that person's consent.
No rational person would argue that a black woman does not have the right to decide to only sleep with black men. Nor would any rational person argue that a white woman should have the right to decide to only sleep with white men. Yet, somehow, magically, according to both liberals and conservatives alike, when this black or white woman opens a business, she has to allow anyone to step foot on it, despite the fact that she has just as much a property right in her business as she does in her own body.
So, no, you're not allowed to "not hire black people" at your business
This is what the current law says. This is most certainly the correct moral position (that we should not be bigotted). However, it is a completely invalid legal position, as law should deal only with property rights (which encompass all other rights). As I pointed out above, your logic is twisted and perverse.
If a black man can decide not to work for a white employer, for no other reason than that he's white, then a white employer should be allowed to decide not to hire a black man, for no other reason than that he's black. The same for vica versa (e.g., a white man deciding not to work for or hire a black man).
No potential employee has the right to step on my property (my business), nor to work for me. To imply that someone has the right to step onto my property, the right to work for me, is to imply that I really have no property rights, as I cannot even determine who can use my property. Nor do I have the right to have any particular potential employee work for me. To imply that I have the right to have anyone else work for me is to imply that they have no right to their property in their person, and essentially implies slavery.
And you're not allowed to "do whatever you like" in your house, either. Beat your wife? Lock your neighbors in the closet? It's your house, isn't it?
I never said you were, so I would appreciate you not mis-representing my position. If I lock someone in my house, or beat up my wife, I have violated their property in their person. This is easily discernable by the non-aggression pact. No-one has the right to initiate violence against anyone else, or their property. If beat my wife, I am gravely intruding on her right to her property in herself. Likewise if I lock her in the closet (false imprisonment necessarily violates a person's right to their property in their person).
Preservation of "everyone's" rights is a balancing act.
No, it is not. In almost all cases, it is very simple, because the only true rights are property rights. Insuring that no-one's rights are violated only means insuring that no-one initiates violence against any other person, and requiring transgressors to repay for their transgressions. This does not requires government, but can be provided for on the free market (see my ref at the end for more details).
Governments (the people acting as one) have "powers"...The "powers" of the various federal, state, and local governments exist only to serve the people--not the other way around.
Like your other statements, these are misonceptions. It is true that the govement has power, in the same sense that a warlord would have power. It has the power to force you to hand over your income to it, at the threat of gunpoint (in other words, the power to steal, and a monopoly on stealing). In theory, the government may exist to serve the people, but in practice, that is impossible. It is impossible because the government, necessarily, must steal from the people to support its own existence, and must and will commit mass murder (war), as well as make much of the population dependant on it for survival ("welfare"). It is also impossible because the government has no way to accurately measure the quality of it's service, as do business' (the profits-loss test).
About a year ago, I was robbed at gunpoint by four individuals in a park. They stole 20 dollars from me. A couple of months later, they were caught, though I never got my 20 dollars back (undoubtely, it is now in the posession of our "serving" government). Despicable as this act of robbery was, it in no way compares to the scale and manner in which the state is robbing me. They stole 20 dollars from me last year. The state stole many thousands of dollars from me last year. Furthermore, at least with these muggers, they left after the fact, and did not follow me around, demanding my service and income so that they could "protect me" (translation: refrain from comitting violence against me). Most thankfully of all, these generous individuals did not proclaim to be my rightful ruler, and to truely be serving my best interest. At least they were honest about their theft. The state, on the other hand, does all of these things, and is much more of a terror to me than 4 muggers with guns ever could be; furthermore, it steals much more from me. Additionally, the state occassionally chooses to enslave me (e.g., forced jury duty). The state does all of this, not at the threat of gunpoint, but at the threat of hundreds of gunpoints, machine-guns, military weapons of mass destruction, and the threat of indefinite imprisonment. Sufficed to say, the moral character of those who stole money from me is vastly superior to that of the state (speaking more correctly, those who run the state).
The government most certainly is not the "people acting as one". It is not the people at all. It is a few individuals with power (how they came to obtain that power is irrelevant) acting to further their own interests, increase the luxery of their lifestyle, and bestow favors upon their select chosen.
This necessarily implies enormous conflict between various groups -- what should be taught at school? Christians will vehemently disagree with Scientists, and the result will be a lot of bickering back and force, and much wasted effort. There would not be such a problem if school was completely privitized.
One last point: Regarding all of your comments, though they are completely invalid as matter of what should be law, they are completely valid as a matter of what is moral. However, simply because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal (though that which is moral should always be legal). It may be immoral of me to refuse to allow someone into my house when it's raining, or to curse at someone, or to lie to someone, or to engage in fornication or adultery; however, none of those things should be illegal.
If you want a complete and methodical description of Libertarianism (which is what I've been talking about), then you should read For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. It is a long read, but it is extremely clear, precise, and well thought-out. For example, Rothbard clearly describes why it should be illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theatre at the end of the second chapter.
Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]