The Mayor of Moscow has said again that he’s not going to allow any “satanic” demonstrations in what he no doubt considers “his” city. Last year the handful of brave people who defied the order and laid a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier (who died fighting fascism), were brutally beaten by fascist thugs, and then by an enormous contingent of riot police, who arrested the peaceful gay marchers, but not the fascist thugs who bashed them.
I wrote about the topic in 2006 for publication in Russian and in English. (It also appeared in Arabic and other languages.) As I noted, the decision about allowing a gay pride parade isn’t only about whether one approves of gay people or not; it has wide reaching implications for the economy, scientific advance, and social progress generally.
Meanwhile, at least one yahoo is calling for American Christians who support Israel to withdraw that support because Israel allows gay pride parades (and gay marriages! Horrors!) in Israel. Whatever.
UPDATE: The author of the remark about Israel and gay pride parades wrote me a note informing me that his remarks were misunderstood (or, in the active voice, that I misunderstood his remarks).
I did not and have never advocated that American Christians who support Israel withdraw their support because Israel allows gay pride parades and gay marriages. Please reread my post:
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/012174.htmlI was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of American Christians who support the Iraq war because they are defenders of Israel. These Christians who get hysterical about the “homosexual agenda” in the United States should, to be consistent, also get outraged about the “homosexual agenda” in Israel.
The issue of a “gay pride” parade should be one of private property–whoever owns the street should make the decision. Unfortunately, since most streets are owned by the government, it is not that simple of an issue.
No mention of the rights of gay people to marry (unless it happens on private streets, I suppose), and the offer dodges a central issue important issue (I guess that allowing gay people even to walk on the streets “is not that simple of an issue,” since the streets are “owned by government”), but at least we know that the author wouldn’t stop people who are gay/black/Irish/whatever from walking on their own streets.
UPDATE: A friend from Moscow sent me the following followup on the Mayor of Moscow’s remarks:
On the subject of gay pride parade (January 29 blog posting): Putin held a televised press conference last week and was asked what he thought of Luzhkov’s remark. He answered that his duty as the president is to combat the demographics problem in Russia. Got a lot of applause for that.
That, of course, was a real cheap shot, but coming from a head of state, it was also dangerous – I imagine that remark may have provoked some gay beatings that day, as it amounts to the president essentially legitimizing the majority of Russians’ homophobic attitudes.
He did hasten to add that he respects all personal freedoms, which I should note in the Russian political environment he did not have to do (unlike he would have had to in Europe or the US to avoid a scandal). So he does get some credit for that… Still, it was a very public bit of bigotry. And quite representative of the Russians’ sentiment in general.
Don’t forget Tom, the Russians are not the only ones who do this sort of thing. Egypt jails people for suspected of being gay and Castro certainly loves to jail gay and lesbian Cubans.
I know there’s a thing about Christians in Conservative circles in the U.S. being rabidly anti-gay, but come on, how many gay pride parades they have broken up? They may have certainly protested Disney for hosting gay themes and such things like that. But never something to what the Russians are doing or what Castro is doing to his gay population.
All true.
Tom,
I know you have done some pieces on Fred Phelps the insane “preacher” who protests against fallen U.S. soldier funerals and even attempted to protest the funerals of the victims of the Amish school massacre.
If you look at Phelps’ history you can see that people like Phelps have a lot in common with people like Fidel Castro or the Taliban which happily executed suspected gay and lesbian Afghanis as a public sport. I also think it’s quite disguisting and typical of the Lewrockwell.com crowd into stating that they shouldn’t support Israel just for allowing gay pride parades to take place.
Just what the hell is the matter with people like that? What’s going on in their minds to suggest that Western nations (although not perfect) are so tyrannical they would rather feel comfortable endorsing the lines of openly tyrannical societies like Cuba or Russia? It’s just simply insane.
The fact that government ownership of the roads complicates the question for libertarians as to whether a given use of those roads is just or not has nothing to do with bigotry. Vance says nothing in that e-mail to you about gays and blacks just walking around in private or public — he is instead giving the correct libertarian view of parades and other such uses of public property, that it is a messy question because of state ownership. A Christmas parade would pose similar problems. So would any parade. To say so is not the same as implying it’s fine for the police to arrest Christians walking around on public streets.
But as for people just walking around on the street, yes, this too is made a little more messy because of government ownership of the streets. It’s impossible to know what exactly is the right policy for government streets, but I think the most prudent answer minimizes state power. Thus, I would oppose laws on public nudity, even, but don’t think those who support them are without some valid arguments. In any event, I don’t see any evidence that Mr. Vance would want the state to harrass peaceful people walking around in public, and I do think you are being uncharitable in your assumptions that he would err on the side of the state banning such peaceful conduct on public roads.
Sorry, I want to be more precise: I think you are being unfair in implying that Vance would be okay with the state cracking down on pedestrian peaceful behavior on public streets. And I think Vance’s original point is sound: The Christian Right is very hypocritical when it comes to the warfare state, at which point they approve military socialism, decadence on military bases, and, as Vance specifically notes here, states allied with the US government even when they engage in supposedly socialistic or anti-Christian policies.
You really showed that guy Vance…finally someone is willing to stick it to those “intelligent” libertarians. They use “logic” and “reason” to support their claims, something which I am sure we can both agree is totally absurd.
Instead of reading what he actually said and the point he was trying to make about hypocrisy, you simply make up something that has no bearing in the real world. That’s the way you are going to get people to help us neocons. Vance made the point that there is a disconnect in the way that neocons want to ban gay marriage in America, but are fine supporting a country that permits it so long as it furthers their warmongering agenda. This is a totally libertarian point because it relies on facts instead of unfounded assertions. We should reject it on face value.
Down with reason…up with Palmer.
I’ve looked at the issues and I don’t think that Vance’s message was so clear. But since the top dispensationalist in America is “the Reverend Jerry Falwell,” whose prejudiced and hostile views on gay people are pretty well known, it seems reasonable to think that Vance is prejudiced like Falwell.
Given that, the Vance statement sounds a lot like taunting Israel for allowing gay parades and gay marriages. Assuming Palmer accurately posted Vance’s letter, Vance evaded theissue and Palmer pounced on Vance’s evasion.
Who really thinks that government ownership of streets makes the issue of whether a gay pride parade should be allowed more complicated? The rule of law and equality before the law require that if any parade (Catholic, Dispensationalist, Jewish, Etc.) is allowed, then any other should be allowed, without regard to the content of the message. Does Gregory think that it’s a very complicated question whether the Knights of Columbus should be allowed to hold a parade? Come on. It’s gays in Moscow and Jerusalem who are the issue Palmer wrote about, and neither Vance nor Gregory (nor A Fan) has said that they would not ban them or that they think that they should be allowed. That’s not a libertarian attitude, since libertarianism isn’t about letting majorities or “the government” decide what to do with government property, but about everyone being equal before the law and being recognized as having equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Such people just give libertarianism a bad name. Palmer is right to refer to them as “The Fever Swamp.”
Whatever Vance meant, he didn’t put it clearly and his response just made it worse, since he didn’t come out in support of right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of assembly of gay people.
The problem is that the roads are, in positive law, effectively “owned” by the State.
They are paid for by taxpayer dollars. Many taxpayers may not approve of such a use of the public roads. (Of course, there’s a lot of things taxpayers wouldn’t approve of). There is a significant difference between walking down a street, or driving down it, and marching down it on a parade.
A parade effectively destroys much of the usefulness a street has in terms of commercial value to the immediately present businesses and small shop owners. If I’m a business owner, I might not be too happy about a gay pride* parade. Or maybe I sell fundamentalist religious books about the prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible.
* In any event, why do people go on gay parades? Don’t they have anything better to do with their time? I don’t go on a “straight pride” parade. But, I suppose if I did, that would be called bigoted, just like if I went on a “white pride” parade. But, for some reason, neither gay pride parades nor black pride parades are considered bigoted.
Pace Mr. Gregory, Mr. Vance’s remarks do suggest that “since most streets are owned by the government,” the government would be justified in banning a “gay pride” parade (his scare quotes, not mine). The same reasons would justify banning the holding of hands by same-gender pedestrian couples on government-owned roads. On what grounds does Mr. Gregory distinguish such cases, since they’re all case of “government ownership”? If the government “owns” the airwaves (as is often claimed), then can they ban political speech they don’t like? What about banning dispensationalist Christians from speaking on the airwaves that the government “owns”?
I think that Danny has put his finger on the issue of law involved: if the state allows one group to use the roads (or a park, etc), then it cannot discriminate against others on the basis of the content of the speech.
Mr. Heinrich is, perhaps, unaware of the genesis of such parades, which were in opposition to very direct, brutal, and vicious state oppression. His view acquiesces in socialism — if the state nationalizes an asset, the right thing to do is to ask what the people want to do with it. So if government were to nationalize all of the land, the right thing (by Mr. Heinrich’s lights), would be to ask whether the majority would want to allow all those racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities to continue living there and, if not, to expell them. Come to think of it, that’s just what the arch-socialist Hans Herman Hoppe, “intellectual” guru of the Rockwell cult, calls for with regard to whether to allow more brown people* to enter the land of the U.S., since it all is the property of the U.S. government. Call me old fashioned if you will, but I call that socialist tyranny.
*See entries on Hoppe at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php
Where did I even imply that I would want the government to ban gay pride parades or any such behavior? Where did I imply that I would think it’s libertarian. I don’t.
I tend to agree that if you allow one group, you should allow all. But there are a scarcity issue and a pricing problem. There’s a tragedy of the commons problem.
I tend to agree that majoritarian ways of handling these problems lead to backdoor democratic tyranny, but the fact is, no matter how public property is used, those who have had to finance that use are violated. Public property does make it hard to know what should be legal in public. Should smoking cigarettes be legal in public parks? Should smoking marijuana or drinking beer be legal on public streets? How should street vendors be handled? What if two opposing groups want a parade at the same time and place, such as in that South Park episode? What if people want to drive while there’s a parade in progress? These questions are simply not so simple to answer.
Should the state ban parades? No. Should it sponsor them? No. Is it possible, under the law, for a big parade to exist without using tax dollars? In many places, no. I think these are fair considerations. This issue is somewhat complicated.
It’s not all that complicated. Principles of harm are normally applied (no loud parades at 3 am, for example), as well as principles of non-discrimination.
“Ban” and “Not Allow” amount to the same thing in such cases. If a parade is not allowed, it’s “banned,” and my question was how Mr. Gregory would distinguish such a case, since it’s a use of “government property,” from not allowing people to hold hands on government property, or even just to take a stroll. I did not suggest (or mean to sound like I was suggesting) that Mr. Gregory wanted to ban such parades, but Mr. Vance’s approach and Mr. Heinrich’s approach suggest (in Heinrich’s, they openly embrace) the method of asking what the majority want to do with such government property and then confining the behavior of minorities on such property. It’s a clear path to tyranny, all grossly legitimated on pseudo-libertarian grounds.
But Dr. Palmer, seriously, what if several groups want a parade at the same time? What if shopowners or nearby residential property owners protest?
I do contend that a parade does present more difficult tragedy of the commons issues than couple’s stroll in the park. A couple should be allowed to stroll in the park even at 3 AM. A parade past midnight would be unwelcome by most people. Should all parades be allowed on public property all the time? This has nothing to do with majoritarian tyranny or bigotry, necessarily. Most people might not want any kind of parade right outside their door at a given time. A parade on public property is indeed a complex issue. The government usuaully has to do more than just not ban a parade. It has to plan for one, accomodate it, arrange for security for it, and so on.
It was not you, by the way, but Danny who implied I might oppose such a parade. He wrote:
“Does Gregory think that it’s a very complicated question whether the Knights of Columbus should be allowed to hold a parade?”
Yes, I do.
“Come on. It’s gays in Moscow and Jerusalem who are the issue Palmer wrote about, and neither Vance nor Gregory (nor A Fan) has said that they would not ban them or that they think that they should be allowed. ”
I oppose the state banning it, of course. But I also oppose the state doing anything to support it. The libertarian position is for the state to do nothing, but when government property is involved and so is blocking off traffic, for example, the totally laissez faire approach doesn’t just mean the parade goes on.
Were there several gay parades that wanted to march at the same time? Or was it the case that it just happened that every day of the year at every available hour there were other parades (high school bands, religious clubs, etc.) that were marching? The Mayor made it clear: they’re Satanic queers and we’re not letting them march. It has nothing to do with any inconvenience to others, which every other march, parade, and street fair entails. Ditto for the religious opponents in Israel and the U.S. Give me a break.
I find it laughable that the LRC delegation thinks that the sick-o Mayor o’Moscow and the religious zealots in Jerusalem are worried about a gay parade inconveniencing shoppers or about the tragedy of the commons on public property. Another bit of evidence that the LRCers are a joke.
I do believe people are making very fair assumptions about what others believe. No one has opposed those gay pride parades. No one has argued that the Christian Right _should_ oppose them. No one implied that the “Mayor o’Moscow and the religious zealots in Jerusalem” had libertarian concerns in their attitudes about the parade. No one said the state should disallow the parades, only that any use of public property is somewhat problematic, from a libertarian perspective, since it is public property, maintained by the state, and while private property is non-adversarial and prevents conflict, public property forces everyone to support something he might not agree with. What’s so hard to understand about this?
I think that Mr. Gregory probably meant to write “very unfair,” rather than “very fair” above. (At least that makes more sense of his sentence.)
It’s not an assumption, but an inference, that Mr. Heinrich and Mr. Vance are hostile to gay people. The scare quotes around “gay pride” is a little sign, and the insistence that denial of permission for such parades could be justified on grounds that they cost taxpayers money or are taking place on land that is owned by government or that the majority of voters might disapprove tells us that they are willing to find reasons to disallow “gay pride” parades, but unwilling to find reasons to allow them. It’s not an assumption that they are bigots; it’s an inference.
Mr. Palmer, why don’t you just recognize that you have misunderstood Mr. Anderson’s words instead of making bold inferences about other people feelings? Assuming (for the sake of the argument) that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Heinrich are indeed personally opposed to homosexuality, it makes them less libertarians? Is it a discussion about libertarianism and aggression or about bigotry or whatever makes you feel bad? (Anyway, I actually don’t infer from Anderson and Heinrich’s words the bigotry you are talking about). As for gay parades and other uses of the public space, I agree with you and Anthony, but it is certainly not hard to see a “tragedy of commons” problem in it. Don’t you agree that there is a tragedy of commons problem in public space (like roads), and that the libertarian solution to this problem is the privatization of this space (i.e. the privatization of roads)?
Mr. Palmer, I respect you and I appreciate your work and that of the Cato Institute, but it makes me sick the way you treat the Mises Institute and LRC circle, which I appreciate very much too. Surely I am not alone in this feeling. If only our fight were against the government and not against fellow libertarians.
No Mr. Anderson has posted here or been commented on here. I take it that Mr. Esplugas means Mr. Vance, the dispensationalist. I infer bigotry from their remarks, given the unwillingness to concede that the city governments in question should allow parades with messages some don’t like. Their discussion of how “complicated” it is speaks volumes. It’s not in fact, such a complicated matter. It’s a matter of not using state assets to promote or suppress this or that point of view. Mr. Esplugas has clouded the issue by raising the question of whether public spaces can lead to conflicts or tragedies of the commons. Sure, but that’s not what’s involved in the Mayor of Moscow’s decision or in the religious extremists in Jerusalem. It’s simply willful blindness to imply otherwise.
I find that the circles to which Mr. Esplugas refers are a massive embarrassment to libertarians when they present themselves as such. Visit The Fever Swamp for examples: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php
There you’ll find cultism, alliances with racists (and long defenses of such forms of collectivism from LRCers), bizarre neo-Confederates, defenses of dictatorships in Eastern Europe, and on and on. Such people undermine libertarianism at virtually every step. By claiming the libertarian mantle, they simply make it dirty by brushing up against such filthy characters and movements. Their actions do nothing to advance liberty and much to retard it.
I urge Mr. Esplugas to ask himself whether he in fact favors a world that is freer and more just than at present (or at least not less free and less just) and then to ask what would achieve those goals. Is dedication to the cause of the Confederacy, close association with people who want to stone homosexuals to death (Gary North), defenses of Alexander Lukashenka, and so forth likely to achieve that? Really, think about it.
I suppose it’s time to weigh in here.
On the one hand, you have people who work to advance liberty by doing policy analysis, talking to the national and international media, and so on. On the other, people who wave their willies around saying ‘Look at me! Look at me!’, while holding a copy of a book by Ludwig von Mises. Are they really in the same movement at all?
Sorry for the lapsus, I mean Mr. Vance (I was reading yesterday’s Mr. Anderson Mises Daily article).
Again, you don’t recognize your misunderstanding of Mr. Vance’s words and instead divert the discussion talking about the (supposed) anti-gay bias of Vance and Heinrich. This and your uncharitable reading of Vance’s post speak volumes about your obsession to smear people related with the Mises Institute and LRC (I am guilty of making my own inferences too).
— It’s a matter of not using state assets to promote or suppress this or that point of view.—
Sure, but that is not possible, strictly speaking, in public space. That’s the problem. If the state allows a gay parade it can be argued that the state is “promoting” a view in the public space (the pro-gay parade view) at the expense of another (the anti-gay parade view), and vice versa, if the state enforces the anti-gay parade view it promotes this view and suppress the other. You seem to assume that when the state allows something in the public space (a gay parade, an anti-gay demonstration, an antiwar rally or a pro-war rally, a Satanist or a racist rally etc.) is not promoting nor suppressing anything, but that is false. The state has to take sides, it has to choose among competing views all the time, and as a matter of fact it promotes some views (some uses of the public space) and prevents others. The owner of a private property does exactly the same. What distinguishes them is that the latter is a legitimate owner and the former is not. Then, any use chosen by the state is fundamentally arbitrary / unjustified. This is, I think, the point of Vance and Heinrich, a rather uncontroversial point. The ideal libertarian solution (the only one that really solves the problem indeed) is to privatize the public space (i.e. the roads). Again, I think we all agree here. Where Vance and Heinrich may differ (this is not an inference, only a speculation) is in the issue “and in the meantime, what? As long as the roads etc. were public property, what is the libertarian position? The state should allow all kinds of peaceful demonstrations, parades, activities etc. regardless of any other consideration or it must behave more prudently, somewhat like a trustee / paying attention to public opinion?”. I tend to agree with the first view (like Anthony, Walter Block, Rod Long, Bob Murphy and many others in the Mises Institute), but I think it is not so outrageous (from an intellectual point of view) to be in favour of the second view, like some others in the MI and LRC circle. At least I don’t consider them bigots or dishonest intellectuals for thinking that way, I can see the libertarian reasons (although mistakenly applied here) behind their position.
As for your tireless reference to the cultism, racism etc. in the Mises Institute and LRC circles, come on Mr. Palmer. May be you convince some of your readers about the credibility of these charges, but you cannot pretend to convince the people (like me) who know about the works of the institute or read LRC or Antiwar with regularity. Sure I don’t agree with everything that is published in those pages (although usually I don’t agree either with your -Ã?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¿uncharitable? Ã?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¿biased?- interpretation). Sure there are some strange characters around there (or normal people with one or two strange views). So what? Welcome to the non-PC world. I can live with that, and I can learn from that. The price of opinion diversity and fruitful discussion is, from time to time, some odd and scandalous view. This is a reason to criticize those views, not a reason to engage in the fallacy of composition as you do again and again, inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. I am convinced you don’t agree with everything your colleagues say and you wouldn’t consider fair that others keep smearing and despising the whole Cato Institute for some views of some of its members (or, for that matter, its “shameful associations” with politicians, inviting them to talk in a conference because they have something interesting to say about an issue despite it’s non-libertarian agenda on other issues).
May be you have gone too far to retreat now, but it would be wonderful if someday you can think of the Mises Institute, LRC, Antiwar… as fellow travellers instead of enemies of the cause.
Dr. Palmer did run the note from Vance and he makes space for comments on his blog, which Lew Rockwell doesn’t do. He posted Vance’s response; Vance’s original post was not clear. After which he noted the silence on the rights of gays to have a parade like everyone else and the offering of reasons to deny them that right. From that he drew a not unreasonable inference. In fact, not only not unreasonable, but reasonable and plausible.
Fellow travellers? Of whom? Of Alexander Lukashenka and Vladimir Putin (Daniel McCarthy, Lew Rockwell, and Justin Raimonodo)? Of the League of the South (Thomas Dilorenzo, Thomas Woods)? Of advocates of executing gays (Gary North)? Read through what Dr. Palmer has documented. I knew something was a bit off when I started visiting the Rockwell site, but I didn’t know how off until Dr. Palmer started to write about them.
Anyway, I’ve got to sign off. I’ve had my say and I’ve better things to do than to debate nutters. It’s clear that Dr. Palmer does, too, but I’m glad that every once in a while he alerts people to oddities of the Lew Rockwell grouping and to the dangers of getting too chummy with them.
—-Of Alexander Lukashenka and Vladimir Putin (Daniel McCarthy, Lew Rockwell, and Justin Raimonodo)? Of the League of the South (Thomas Dilorenzo, Thomas Woods)?—-
What a distortion of their views. Neither McCarthy, nor Rockwell nor Raimondo have ever justified Lukashenko or Putin regimes. They don’t accept some of the neocon charges (and they keep arguing against them because they think it can entail more US foreign intervention). Also they don’t assume by default that the official opposition to these regimes (backed by the US government) are a sort of “libertarian alternative” or a lesser evil. I don’t necessarily agree with this position, but certainly is not the same as to be “fellow travellers of Luckashenko and Putin”. Sure you can grasp the difference.
In the same way, never DiLorenzo or Woods have justified the Confederation or expressed racist views. They are ferocious critics of Lincoln’s war and regime. What’s wrong with that? (By the way, you can found the story of Dr. Woods and the League of the South searching “In case you were wondering” in LRC).
As for North, I don’t know about his actual views about homosexuals. If it’s true that he would execute them, shame on him, but I haven’t read any of this stuff in LRC. Why don’t you criticize North instead of smearing and insulting all the people involved in the Mises Institute and LRC? Bob Barr supports the War on Drugs and has talked in some Cato events. Does it mean that Cato supports the War on Drugs or has “shameful associations” and the whole institute deserves to be despised?
(Footnote: I read all the controversial material compiled in the Fewer Swamp when it was published, so I am fully aware of “the substance” of your charges against MI and LRC. I am following these unfair attacks on MI and LRC since its beginnings. It is sad to me, a Spanish libertarian, to witness this nonsensical fighting between people that I appreciate and consider part of the same movement).
Dr. Palmer has been perfectly clear about his position, and it strikes me that none of the people who continue to disagree have mentioned the relevant phrases: “principles of harm” and “principles of non-discrimination” (both at 10:16am).
This really *isn’t* a complicated issue. Setting aside the question of privatizing roads, since it has nothing to do with the Moscow case, the question is whether the government is justified in banning *only* the gay pride parade (or other parades with which it disagrees).
There’s really no reason for this to be a tragedy of the commons at all. The government needs to regulate its roads so that their primary function (transportation) remains accessible. Say they decide to do this by issuing parade permits. The question is this: Can they deny a parade permit to the gay rights group simply because a bare majority disapproves of the parade? Clearly, denying the permit on those grounds is naked majoritarianism, which is destructive of liberty. The government can only issue parade permits in accordance with a non-discrimination principle.
When Moscow’s mayor said he would never allow the “satanic queers” to march, that pretty much puts a thumb in the eye of any non-discrimination principle.
The principle of non-discrimination can only be overridden by the principle of harm. In other words, if a particular parade was likely to egregiously harm people, the government might be able to ban it. There’s nothing wrong with banning a parade containing radioactive floats.
Unless this particular parade was sending out some kind of queer tachyons (as Mr. Heinrich may believe?), there’s no justification for preventing it from taking place.
To say that majority rules should be the standard for all public property strikes me as bizarre and deeply anti-libertarian. This is why we have constitutions–because the majority often seeks to oppress the minority.
Andrew Perraut : “This really *isn’t* a complicated issue. Setting aside the question of privatizing roads, since it has nothing to do with the Moscow case, the question is whether the government is justified in banning *only* the gay pride parade (or other parades with which it disagrees).”
YOU think that’s the issue, but that’s NOT the issue. Heinrich and Vance never so much as implied that they think “only” the gay pride parade or other parades with which it disagrees should be disallowed. Rather, they have said that public property makes it impossible to know whether there should be a parade or not. I would bet good money that they would agree the exact same principles apply to Christian parades or any other parades anywhere on public property.
Anthony, thanks for your comment but I stand by my point. Dr. Palmer’s initial post points out that the government often discriminates again gay and lesbian members of society–straights can get married, gays cannot. Although the ideal libertarian solution might be marriage by contract, that isn’t the world we’re living in. So long as the government *does* legislate the marriage contract, it is unjustifiably discriminatory to deny gay people equal rights, because there is no rational basis for their exclusion.
Similarly, with the parade, it’s all or nothing. In Libertopia, perhaps this would not be a problem, but in the real world, the government allows some people to hold parades. Thus, it must allow any group that does not violate the harm principle to do so as well.
You are right to say the issue is “complicated,” but counter-proposals to the harm principle of public use have been vague or left unstated. From the comments, it sounds to me as if some people have suggested that use be decided on a majority-rules basis, which is undesirable for the reasons I mentioned earlier. If there’s another idea about how the decision might be made, I’d be open to hearing about it, but I doubt an acceptable alternative exists.
Mr. Vance and Mr. Heinrich may not have openly called for banning only the gay pride parade , but I don’t think they ever called for banning *all* parades(the only alternative the non-discrimination and harm principles permit). Their silence on that key point, combined with the liberal use of scare quotes, naturally makes one question what their views really are.
Andrew, you write, “You are right to say the issue is ‘complicated,’ but counter-proposals to the harm principle of public use have been vague or left unstated. From the comments, it sounds to me as if some people have suggested that use be decided on a majority-rules basis, which is undesirable for the reasons I mentioned earlier. If there’s another idea about how the decision might be made, I’d be open to hearing about it, but I doubt an acceptable alternative exists.
“Mr. Vance and Mr. Heinrich may not have openly called for banning only the gay pride parade , but I don’t think they ever called for banning *all* parades(the only alternative the non-discrimination and harm principles permit). Their silence on that key point, combined with the liberal use of scare quotes, naturally makes one question what their views really are.”
Their main point is that it’s complicated, which you agree to. Just because others on this list imply that these two have bigoted views doesn’t mean there’s any reason to assume they do. They don’t show signs of it in their writing here. They should be innocent until proven guilty.
Personally, I think the state should indeed give marriage licenses to all who want them — including groups of more than two. I think this would lead to the meaninglessness of government marriage licenses, which is the next best thing to not having them at all.
I also think the state should indeed issue parade permits to all who want them, but I don’t pretend this won’t cause many problems. Of course it will. I only hope such problems would help reveal the inescapable contradiction that lies in public property itself. Surely, so long as there is public property, libertarianism as it pertains to that property cannot be attained; nor can any internally consistent policy. If you allow any and all parades, WHAT IF two groups want a parade at the same time? It is not difficult to see that your second-best solution, like all second-best solutions regarding public property, is not really fully attainable. That’s one problem with government — insofar it is problem, fairness and logical consistency in policy are simply impossible.
And by the way, while I favor non-discrimination and egalitarian second-best rules, they too are flawed and raise paradoxical problems. Consider public univiersities. Almost all libertarians they Affirmative Action should be eliminated, since it’s discriminatory. But wait a second. Why should public schools, which everyone is forced to fund, judge people and hand out benefits on the basis of academic achievement? This too is unfair, in a sense. It is the redistribution of wealth from those who don’t do as well in school to those who do. Why is this fair? If you think about it, so long as the state is involved, non-discrimination is not really a coherent policy, either. Certainly, fairness isn’t.
And as for Palmer’s original point, this post is called “Beating Up Gays and Lesbians for Fun!” What did Vance write, in his attack not on gays but on the hypocritical Christian right, that warrants inclusion in the blog, with the implied message that Vance himself is beating up on gays and lesbians?
Or should we just assume he’d be prejudicial and bigoted because all evangelicals think the same?
I find some of the above discussion a bit, shall we say, disingenuous. Anthony keeps saying that someone is “assuming” that David Heinrich is a bigot. As Tom pointed out, he does nothing of the sort. He infers it. Read the silly comments by Laurence Vance and David Heinrich, for God’s sake. The scare quotes around “gay pride” are a clue, as are discussions of hypothetical “white pride” rallies. Moreover, if some yahoo (the term seems apt) gives a series of reasons for banning a gay pride parade (oops, “gay pride” parade), but no mention of banning any other parades, what should a reasonable person make of it, especially when combined with the childish rhetoric of David Heinrich?
Anthony is upset that the original blog post was about “Beating Up Gays and Lesbians for Fun!,” and Laurence Vance didn’t openly call for that. Good point, but maybe that’s why Tom introduced the last quip with the word “meanwhile,” with an oblique reference to the desire by religious extremists to ban a gay pride (darn! I did it again: “gay pride”) parade in Jerusalem. In both cases, gays and lesbians are threatened with being beaten.
If Laurence and David want to see permits issued for gay pride (” “) parades, they could say so. That they don’t speaks for itself.
Sandra, this is what happened:
Dr. Palmer wrote a post about bashing homosexuals, and linked to a Laurence Vance blog entry, saying that Vance was calling on Christians to stop supporting Israel since Israel allowed gay pride parades and gay marriages — when in fact, Vance was attacking the Christian Right for hypocrisy.
Vance e-mailed Palmer to clarify this, and point out that he wasn’t attacking gay pride parades, which, being a libertarian, he can’t oppose out of principle, nor support out of principle qua libertarian, since the only issues from a property rights perspective are obscured by the tragedy of the commons. In so doing, Vance was only giving the position of true tolerance and libertarianism.
After that, we have seen nothing but inference and conjecture about what Vance _really_ thinks about this issue.
There’s no there there. Palmer mischaracterized Vance’s views. Vance clarified them and said his position on gay pride parades is the libertarian one. It does not “speak for itself” that Vance hasn’t been able to anticipate every mischaracterization of his views and preemptively deny it. Rather, it speaks only of those commenting on this blog that they would attack someone like Vance without any fair reason to at all. No, the inferences aren’t fair, either.
Vance’s views are very libertarian. He should get the benefit of the doubt. He has not spouted hatred for anything, as far as I have seen, other than the state, especially its warfare side. Whereas it is sometimes difficult to know what one means when he calls himself a “libertarian” — after all, many such people backed the murderous Iraq war, which is about as unlibertarian a policy as the federal government has carried out in the last several decades — Vance has shown himself to be quite principled in his writings.
Anthony, I notice there’s still no counter-proposal to a principle of harm for public use.
I think the problem here is that we’re arguing two different positions; you’re insistent on nothing less that the anarcho-libertarian position, while I’m talking about the specific Moscow case at hand.
Conceding, for the sake of argument, that I want to see all roads privatized, this has very little to do with Moscow, since the state isn’t exactly withering away over there. I’m attempting to explain what I think the government should do, given the fact that public property exists.
I think you cast a false dichotomy by implying that we can have only EITHER pure libertarianism instantaneously OR pure statism. Surely, the mere fact that your preferred option is not available does not imply that all other options are equally unacceptable from a libertarian point of view. Some policies the government might adopt to regulate the use of public land will be more or less libertarian, more or less tyrannical. Some policies will allow any group to use the road, and some policies will prevent only a gay pride parade.
Given that the road is public, I think the rules regulating parades should be the most conducive of liberty. That implies using the principles of non-discrimination and harm to determine who can and cannot march–which were clearly violated in the Moscow case. The key is non-discrimination. If two groups want to march at the same time, too bad. The government must set up transparent, general, non-discriminatory rules that regulate the use of public property. One of these rules might be that only one march can occur at a time. First come, first served.
Just because the anarcho-libertarian option isn’t on the table doesn’t mean that all alternatives are morally equivalent.
I’ve been travelling and out of the loop for a while. So I’ve read through the above and have the following to add:
1. Vance’s first remark was absurd (and showed the typical obsession with Israel in certain circles). I mentioned it as an afterthought (because it also concerned gay pride parades) to a blog post about the case of Moscow.
2. Vance sent me a “clarification,” which I posted. I noted the silence on the substantive questions.
3. Various comments followed. In none of them did the LRC contingent address the issue at hand: should the state suppress speech or freedom of assembly on the basis of the content of the speech? The hostility of Vance and Heinrich to gay people and their rights to equal treatment by the state is a reasonable inference from their remarks (e.g., scare quotes around gay pride, comparisons to straight pride rallies, with no mention that the parade in Moscow was to commemorate the 13th anniversary of the legalization of same gender relations in Russia — an occasion for a celebration of liberty — or the beatings that gay people experience, none of which have been suffered by heterosexuals). Moreover, they managed to come up with a number of reasons for suppressing the expression of views supportive of equal rights for gay people, and no reasons for allowing them equal access to government property.
So, there we go. Vance’s remarks were unclear. I posted his attempt at a clarification. (Shame on me.) That clarification obscured the key issues under the mantle of how complicated it is when there are competing uses of state property. As various commentators note, that just won’t do. Substitute any other group and it becomes clearer that Vance and Heinrich are bigots who do not favor equal rights. Should “civil rights for blacks” parades be allowed? Why, that’s “complicated.” Should Cinco de Mayo festivals be allowed? That’s certainly “complicated.” Let’s have a vote and let the majority decide whether the minority should ever be allowed access to state resources; that’s a “libertarian” solution! Should Jews be allowed to travel on Amtrak? Well, there you go again. It’s “complicated.” Those little hats they wear might offend people who sell religious books along the way. Should the government allow the “government owned airwaves” to be used to broadcast discussions of evolution and “intelligent design”? Again, it’s just so darn “complicated.” None of those cases are really complicated at all — for me, or for them. But “gay pride” parades — now, those are really “complicated.” What rubbish.
Figure it out. Anthony Goodman, you jump to the defense of bigots who use libertarian rhetoric to hide their ugliness and their willingness to use the state to advance their agenda. Face it, you’re an “enabler” of bigotry. You cover up the serious creepiness of the core of the Lew Rockwell crowd. Were Heinrich and Vance decent about the matter, they’d just say “I don’t like queers and dykes, but I think that they should be treated no differently than anyone else and I believe that the state should not use its control of resources in discriminatory ways to suppress them or others.” But they seem not to believe that. They favor using the state for their own values. There’s a name for that. And it’s not “libertarianism.”
…which is, of course, why no one is willing to propose an alternative to the non-discrimination principle. If they’re vague enough about the standards that they propose the government use, or if they hem and haw about how all public use is inherently unlibertarian, we might not notice the underlying tone of intolerance.
My god, Anthony, Google “gay” or “homosexual” on the Rockwell site (I’ve just done this) and see who you’ve thrown in with.
My God, yourself, Andrew.
As I made clear, I oppose the state forcibly stopping peaceful behavior on public property. So long as the government maintains land, I don’t believe the government should even enforce laws against drunk driving, public nudity, public drug use, hate speech, or pretty much anything that’s not actually violent. Parades are more complicated, since the _state_ usually has to block off traffic during them. All public parades are to some extent an endorsement of civic collectivism — but I wouldn’t ever vote against a gay pride parade (I marched in one as a supporter once) and I wouldn’t vote against a pro-war parade, or an antiwar parade, or any parade. But I don’t pretend my view is the only decent view one can have regarding public property.
I ask you, Andrew — do you believe in laws against drunk driving? Is it “complicated” for you, since the state maintains the roads? I personally believe private roads should and would have some standards about who can drive, but so long as the government maintains roads, I don’t even believe in drivers licenses. Are you prepared to go as far as me?
As long as the government maintains public land, I also oppose all restrictions on immigration. No checkpoints. No border guard. No limits at all. Do you agree with me?
So long as the government maintains public land, I think graffiti of public land shouldn’t ever be punished. Do you agree?
I am a radical opponent of government enforcement of anything on public land, but I don’t think that those who disagree with me must have some horrible reason why.
I agree some policies are worse than others on public property.
But allowing all parades is not necessarily the right course of action. What if 95% of the people don’t want any parades — they just want to get to work and hate the blocked off traffic that comes with a parade?
So long there is public property, some political approaches are worse than others. But the only real libertarian position is to reduce government ownership of property. This is elementary. If you don’t like the reality that public property means there is no clear solution, don’t attack me or other libertarians. Blame the government and statist ideology.
Dr. Palmer, please show where Heinrich (a near-pacifist) and Vance (an anti-statist) “favor using the state for their own values.” Please.
Didn’t you defend the US occupation of Iraq until recently, thinking it was all that was preventing a civil war over there? If you are able to hold (in my view, miscalculated) pragmaticism above strict libertarian principle when it comes to the biggest government program in years, how can you attack other libertarians for “using the state for their own values” simply when they argue that _other_ people’s values are at stake in _any_ policy regarding the commons?
“I wouldn’t ever vote against a gay pride parade (I marched in one as a supporter once)”
You may not be a bigot, but your “fellow travelers” are, as a cursory glance at the LRC archives will prove. Vance accused Bush of betrayal after he had the audacity to appear in public(!) with a gay man. There is far worse in your archives, and you defend it. You are the bigots’ beard.
“Are you prepared to go as far as me?”
I readily concede the radical, fringe ground to you.
“do you believe in laws against drunk driving? Is it ‘complicated’ for you”?
I think I’ve covered the harm principle. Radioactive floats? Queer tachyons?
“I am a radical opponent of government enforcement of anything on public land”
Laws against murder?
[Next post]: “I agree some policies are worse than others on public property.”
Oops, you caught that one.
“What if 95% of the people don’t want any parades”
Non-responsive to the issue of discrimination against a single group based on its content alone.
“But the only real libertarian position is to reduce government ownership of property.”
And until you usher in your particular end of history, there’s really no point in worrying about such trivial issues as “individual rights” or “baseless discrimination by government.” Why concern yourself with such pedestrian matters when you can just wish yourself into utopia?
Well, this discussion has become rather too diffuse to be easily followed. But I’ll mention a few things. I have never defended “the US occupation of Iraq.” I have said that the best proposal (long since past) was to set timetables for performance and withdraw. Since no withdrawal can in fact be instantaneous (just for logistical reasons), I proposed that dates certain or milestones certain be set and that it be made clear to all that the US was out of there. If you want to get out, it’s helpful to propose how. My ideas were not implemented (not a big surprise), along with all the other proposals for withdrawal, none of which have been implemented. Had they been, US troops would have been out of Iraq a long time ago. But regardless of which unimplemented proposal was best, what on earth does that have to do with the eagerness of some to use state ownership of resources as an excuse to force disfavored minorities to shut up? I’m baffled…even a decent casuist should be able to do better than that.
Anthony Goodman asked me to cite where David Heinrich showed any inclination to “favor using the state for their own values.” How about relying on majority values to determine how government property will be used? (Also known as majoritarian tyranny.) Moreover, the LRC delegation elaborate reasons to deny permission for a parade, but none to grant it. That says something, don’t you think? Doesn’t any reasonable inerpreter see it that way?
Anthony Goodman has specialized in casting up clouds of dust every time the ugly racism, bigotry, and sickness of Lew Rockwell & Co. comes up. Congratulations for your misguided loyalty, Anthony. But I don’t think you’ve fooled many people.
I’ve let this thread run on past the point of dimiishing marginal returns. Unless someone really, really has to say something, I’m closing it off. (But if you do really, really want to say something, email me and I’ll post it.)
UPDATE: I got two responses, one from another person who finds the defenses of bigotry above incomprehensible, but who said he thought others had covered the issues, and another from Mr. Vance, who sent a note that shows an unhealthy obsession with “the insertion of things in their mouth (and other places) that God never intended to be inserted there.” Ohhhh-kaaayyy…… The whole letter manages to offer a peek into Mr. Vance’s private fantasies without answering the question of whether governments should allow gay people to demonstrate their views publicly, other than to write, “I think that allowing a “Christian pride” parade on public property is just as complex an issue as allowing a “gay pride” parade.” You know, I just don’t believe him. He and his ilk are happy to come up with reasons to deny permission to a gay group, but I really doubt that he would volunteer reasons to deny a group of crackpot religious fanatics (which is most certainly not a reference to Christians — just to the subset that includes Mr. Vance) equal access to use of the public roads. Anyway, the whole kooky note is here:
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/papers/vance_response.pdf
Dmz Hosting
Then, after she leaves school.
Cell Phone Ringtone Composer Notes
Jordan Jules, short tunic motives.
Nokia 3310 Free Ringtones
In Hyde Park franchise.
cb3b448cce425b0b5a3831fc1c8c2b35
cb3b448cce425b0b5a3831fc1c8c2b35