Viacom Removes “The Dukes of Hazzard” Reruns from TVLand Schedule, Because Urge to Purge
Some time ago, Bill Quick attacked me, claiming, wrongly, that I was inconsistent to support a baker’s right to not make a gay wedding cake when of course I would be fighting, racistly angry about a Muslim who insisted on Islamic dress codes in his own store.
Ah. I see I’ve yanked Big Moron’s chain again, and gotten the same regurgitation that I did before.
Ace is four-square Fuck You! War! for his delusion about the desirability of a society in which absolute freedom of association rules. Hence:
That’s fucking America.
Did you not know that? That that’s what America is?
That America is the right to be different from other people?
I don’t see why a store run by a pious conservative Muslim can’t demand that women be covered, if that’s his bag, nor why a store run by a pious conservative Catholic can’t also insist that women cover their shoulders, if that’s his sense of what his business should be, of what should happen on property he owns.
Will there be hurt feelings when some are turned away?
And who cares?
Well, Big Moron, for one thing, that ain’t America. That’s your delusion of an America than never has, and never will, exist. For another, as to who cares? Those shut out of the pursuit of happiness by this mythical absolute liberty. They care. In many cases, they care quite a lot.
I realize that Ace is an ignorant moron, (he’s proud of this, I think) who knows little or nothing about American history, or even very much about the reality of human nature, but the claim that America is the right to be different takes cluelessness to a moronic new height. First off, everybody is “different.” There is no “right” involved in that at all. It is merely an observation. And as is befitting much of what passes for Big Moron’s “thinking,” even as an observation, it’s a very trivial observation. The real question is what actions should a state permit in regards to the fact that everybody is different? Big Moron, once you dig through the crap tons of horseshit he spouts on the matter, is really advocating something called the Absolute Right of Freedom of Association.
What’s that, you ask? This:
Freedom of association – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freedom of association is a term popular in libertarian literature. It is used to describe the concept of absolute freedom to live in a community or be part of an organization whose values or culture are closely related to one’s preferences; or, on a more basic level, to associate with any individual or group of ones choosing.
I should add that this includes the “right” not to associate with any individual or group of one’s choosing – which is the aspect Big Moron is pushing here.
Libertarians and Objectivists dance all around this concept as it would theoretically apply to the real world:
The libertarian concept of freedom of association is often criticized from a moral/ethical context. Under laws in such a system, business owners could refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society.
Right-libertarians sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Allen Epstein, respond that in a case of refusing service (which thus is a case of the freedom of contract) unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage. Left-libertarians argue that such refusal would place those businesses at an economic disadvantage to those that provide services to all, making them less profitable and eventually leading them to close down.
This is, of course, nothing but theory, because, absent pure anarchy, an absolute right to freedom of association has never, and can never exist in the real world, only in theory. And even in a pure anarchy, your “absolute right” to free association will exist only so long as somebody with a sufficiently large club doesn’t kick down your door and compel you to associate with him. Big Moron and Libertarians and Objectivists can babble on and on about this fantasy, but I defy them to show me any society in all of human history in which this mythical right existed in the real world, or where these theoretical market punishments have functioned as they claim to enforce this “right.”
If you’d like to take a crack at it, keep in mind that this “absolute liberty” includes both the liberty to associate, and not to associate. In other words. if a shopkeeper (or any other commercial purveyor is permitted to not sell to somebody, he must also be permitted to sell to whomever he wishes. So if any society bans the sale of, say, facial shaves to male Muslims who want them, or horses to Jews, or handguns to seventeen year olds, they are not practicing the absolute right to freedom of association. (Fair warning: I’ve laid a little trap in the aforementioned, in case you think you see a big fat gotcha, and are inclined to jump all over it).
Now, we have a reasonable test case about this in the Jim Crow era that gripped the South for nearly a century after the Civil War. Libertarians like to claim that Jim Crow was a product of government oppression, rather than an expression of the will of large majorities of Southern voters through their legislatures and the laws they passed in response to the public will. But they lie.
Even absent the state enforcing the rights of blacks to avail themselves of the same goods, services, housing, jobs, and so on that whites could freely enjoy, it is an extremely dubious proposition that the South would not have remained almost entirely – I would suggest entirely, and stop the quibbling – segregated, because even whites inclined to cater to blacks would not have done so for fear of public censure – or worse (being forced out of business by “other means,” or by being denied the same housing, goods, and services denied to blacks spring immediately to mind – “You like nigras so much? Fine. We’ll treat you like a nigra, then….”).
Jim Crow Museum: Origins of Jim Crow
Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s. Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-black laws. It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to the status of second class citizens.
Jim Crow represented the legitimization of anti-black racism. Many Christian ministers and theologians taught that whites were the Chosen people, blacks were cursed to be servants, and God supported racial segregation. Craniologists, eugenicists, phrenologists, and Social Darwinists, at every educational level, buttressed the belief that blacks were innately intellectually and culturally inferior to whites.
Pro-segregation politicians gave eloquent speeches on the great danger of integration: the mongrelization of the white race. Newspaper and magazine writers routinely referred to blacks as niggers, coons, and darkies; and worse, their articles reinforced anti-black stereotypes. Even children’s games portrayed blacks as inferior beings (see “From Hostility to Reverence: 100 Years of African-American Imagery in Games”).
All major societal institutions reflected and supported the oppression of blacks. The Jim Crow system was undergirded by the following beliefs or rationalizations: whites were superior to blacks in all important ways, including but not limited to intelligence, morality, and civilized behavior; sexual relations between blacks and whites would produce a mongrel race which would destroy America; treating blacks as equals would encourage interracial sexual unions; any activity which suggested social equality encouraged interracial sexual relations; if necessary, violence must be used to keep blacks at the bottom of the racial hierarchy.
Be that as it may: It took the federal government’s enforcement of the Civil Rights Acts to finally free blacks (and others) to enjoy the same access to goods, services, housing, and jobs that whites took for granted. The markets and social and cultural pressures sure as hell didn’t. And when Ace supports absolute freedom of association, he is supporting a society that relegates the despised to the back alleys, slums, ghettos, crap jobs and cheap, substandard goods and services of Jim Crow, simply because they are despised. It is a stupid, primitive, and repulsive view, but hey: We’re talking Big Moron here.
But in fact I don’t. I don’t give a shit. I don’t give a shit about being denied service at a Muslim Halal Shop, and, as long as we work out a system which avoids me waiting in the rain for a cab which later rejects me, I don’t care about Muslim cab drivers refusing to ferry alcohol or dogs around, either.
He quibbles. In the world of absolute freedom of association, if Ace wanted to find a cab that would give him a ride, he might not be able to do so, no matter what technological gimcracks he used to find such. Because, just as decent jobs, good housing, seats at the front of the bus, and most goods and services were simply unavailable under any circumstances to southern blacks under legally – and socially and culturally – mandated Jim Crow, so would Big Moron, if he were regarded as enough of a pariah, be unable to find them either.
So much for absolute freedom of association. Big Moron himself implicitly admits that he doesn’t really want that (as long as we work out a system which avoids…) And if we can’t work out such a system, Big Moron, because the services you want are simply not made available to you, what then? You just go home and cry yourself to sleep while sucking on a tattered copy of Atlas Shrugged? Assuming, of course, you’re able to find someone who would even rent you a hobo’s cardboard box for you to go home to?
Now, let’s go on to Big Moron’s other ludicrous contention: That America means absolute freedom of association. I said that “everybody is different” is so obviously true it isn’t even worth assertion, and instead ask something actually relevant: How should society deal with that obvious fact?
Do we want a society in which everybody is free to lock everybody else out from any commerce with them whatsoever, for any reason whatsoever? If every non-black person wishes to refuse goods and services to black people, is that the society we want to live in? (Fill in your own blanks for other forms of mass discrimination or even specific discrimination).
Do we really want the War of All Against All?
I don’t think so. (I put in the link because I doubt Big Moron has one single clue about what Hobbes really meant by the phrase).
Nor did the men who designed the United States of America recognize this absolute freedom of association Big Moron is prattling on about.. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees such a right, especially in regards to commercial association.
While the United States Constitution’s First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association.
And even modern discoveries of such a right deal more with rights to political or religious associations, (in churches, not in church-owned businesses).
Nor did absolute freedom of association exist in Revolutionary Era America at the time of the Constitutional Convention and the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that absolute freedom of association prohibits laws laws that rule out the prevention of commercial transactions, too. In fact, there is no real difference between laws that prevent or require commercial transactions. They both limit the asserted absolute freedom of association involved.
Of course there were many, many such laws, and the Framers were well aware of them.
Northern Exclusion of Blacks
In colonial times, Northern freemen, like slaves, were required to carry passes when traveling in some places, and they were forbidden to own property in others.
Which meant that potential sellers could not exercise some mythical absolute right of free association and sell them such property.
They could only use ferries under certain conditions in New England. In South Kingstown, Rhode Island, they could not own horses or sheep.
Which meant that ferryman could not sell them rides, or herdsmen sell them sheep.
Having set controls on their black residents, the Northern states busied themselves in passing laws to make sure no more blacks moved within their boundaries. These were not elitist actions. The pressure for total exclusion came from the working class whites, struggling for a little bargaining power with the shopowners and fearful of inexpensive black competition that could drive down wages.
Anyway, the Framers, even knowing perfectly well that laws in the colonies, and in their new nation, infringed this “right to absolute freedom of association,” they ignored it entirely. Because the didn’t recognize an absolute right to freedom of association.
So much for “…America is the right to be different from other people…”
Now, this does not mean an absolute right to freedom of association cannot be theoretically asserted to exist. But it does allow one to entertain the question of whether such a right can actually exist in the real world.
And here is where we get to Big Moron’s hallucinatory beliefs on the matter.
Libertarians are nearly as well-known as Marxists for trying to hand-wave away human nature and then, when human nature utterly wrecks their delusions, smiling bravely and saying, “Well, if we try this same one thing over and over, I’m sure it will turn out differently.”
Let’s imagine, for a moment, Big Moron’s Brave New World of Absolute Freedom of Association:
First off, every person who is an anti-black racist, or who fears blacks, or who steps to the other side of the street upon seeing blacks approaching, or would like to to do so will be free to wall blacks out of their lives entirely. Refuse to sell to them. Band together with like-minded folks to do likewise. Put up walled communities with signs on the front gates: “No homes sold to blacks here.” And of course you wouldn’t want them in your schools, or your churches, or your places of business. After all, absolute freedom of association, you know.
Now multiply that by every cancerous clot of fear, bigotry, or hatred in the body politic, and see what sort of society you end up with.
For starters, you end up with disgruntled blacks, shut out of the majority of possible avenues for the pursuit of happiness, firebombing stores and shooting bigoted landlords.
At which point perhaps Big Moron raises one palsied finger and quavers, “Aha. But that’s why we have a society of laws! The government will protect us all from such violence.”
Izzat so, Big Moron? Which government? What cops? Gonna send some black cops to protect racist white landlords from the wrath of their fellow blacks? That might even work out, one out of four times or so. The rest of the time, the black cops will join with the mob to make sure that Whitey is dead, dead, dead.
Of course, white elements of the state power will rise to the defense of their right-skin-congenial brethren and their right to absolute freedom of association, so we can then all enjoy the Second US Civil War, but hey: We all have absolute right to freedom of association, so it’s all worth it. We all have a right to sleep under bridges, too, but some find that right more useful than others.
And that’s just on the issue of the racial divide between one set of races. Multiply that by all races, sexes, ages, sexual orientations, national origins, religions, etc., and every other excuse for discrimination you can think of. But no matter. According to Big Moron, the result will be a fucking nirvana of absolute freedom of association.
Actually, dumbass, the result will likely look a hell of a lot like Beirut, not so long ago.
Of course, I would expect Big Moron to sputter, “Well, we’re better than that now. That sort of racism (or sexism, or ageism, or gay hatred, or religious bigotry) would not find social acceptance today.” Except that some of it does, and the rest of it did, not so long ago. And could be acceptable again, absent any legal prohibitions against expressing it via hate-based discriminatory practices in housing, public accommodations, education, and so on.
A while back I actually had a reasonably intelligent discussion with some of my Randian and Libertarian readers, (probably impossible with a Big Moron) which resulted in my decision to no longer claim full-blown Randian Objectivism, or Big L Libertarianism as entirely my own:
Libs and Progtards: Or Why I Won’t Be Calling Myself a Randian Objectivist Any Longer | Daily Pundit Archive Site
Further, I don’t pay sufficient attention or respect to the notion of freedom of association, because I support the notion that public businesses should serve the whole public, black, white, gay, straight, male, female, and so on, on the grounds of fairness and long term system stability.
What these disgruntled Libertarians and Objectivists miss is that I am not suicidal, either on a personal or a national basis. A nation riven by ethnic and religious warfare between factions excluded from various goods and services on the basis of freedom of association is not a nation in which Libertarianism or Objectivism are likely to flourish.
This was written long before Big Moron attempted to put in his one cent (two cents are obviously far beyond the contents of his intellectual purse).
One of the more repellant aspects of not-very-bright ideologues is a willingness to believe that their ideology perfectly reflects reality. Which is why they are so often shocked and amazed when reality itself points out that their ideology is delusional.
Big Moron thinks I’m an “authoritarian.” Of course, he apparently thinks that any existence or application of state power beyond what is, in effect, anarchy, is authoritarian. Stupid people like to take single words and turn them into iconic symbols of their faiths. But what stupid people miss is that every single government that ever existed is authoritarian to some extent. It has to be, because if it isn’t, it cannot govern.
That’s why we call them “the authorities.”
authorities – definition of authorities by The Free Dictionary
(?-thôr??-t?, ?-th?r?-, ô-)
a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.
2. Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.
And that’s why people who reject all authoritarianism are nothing more than anarchists. And very big, very stupid, very suicidal Big Morons as well.
America is really about unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Says so right there in our founding document (although not, apparently, in Big Moron’s fever dreams of America). None of the three are, or can be, absolutely compatible all the time. We make choices when they are not compatible, giving one aspect primacy over another. I advocate giving primacy to the pursuit of happiness for the many over the imaginary absolute liberty of a few.
Big Moron doesn’t. I’d wish him the joy of living in the society that would result if he got his wish, but that would likely mean I’d have to live in it too. And since I’m not stupid, ignorant, suicidal, or delusional – or a Big Moron – I don’t want to do that.
Or, you never know: Big Moron might just be lying about his opinion of all of this.
Glenn Beck: I’m Done With the GOP
Here’s Some Truth: We all know this, but being Part of the Team, I felt obligated to lie, because I figured you expected me to lie, even though you didn’t believe it.
So yeah: The GOP is never repealing Obamacare or even trying hard to do so. They will make false efforts at doing so which they can present to voters as a Good College Try, but aw shucks, we couldn’t quite do it.
It’s a relief to no longer have to propagate this obvious, feeble lie.
I’ll buy feeble. Maybe he’s just lying to push the delusions of his Randian Objectivist Team, and doesn’t really believe them for a minute. He just thinks his gang o’morons expect to hear him say them, and so he does. Not that his pack of yap-dogs will care, as they piddle on their paws at his every pronouncement, lie or not.
Anyway, to drag Big Moron’s dog’s breakfast all the way back to the beginning: What apparently moved him to repost this unavoidable evidence of his own stupidity and delusion was that a Viacom-owned TV channel no longer wants to purchase the right to run episodes of Dukes of Hazzard the company believes contains offensive symbols.
Well, hey, Big Moron. We can’t, under any circumstances, abridge Viacom’s right to absolute freedom of association, including their ability to choose whom they are willing to do business with, right?
Actually, if you are intellectually honest (and I don’t credit you with intellectualism, let alone honesty) you’d have to admit that according to the doctrine of absolute freedom of association, they have a bedrock right to do exactly that. As, of course, you have a bedrock right to howl at them for exercising the absolute right you support.
“I disagree with what you do, but will defend to the death your absolute right to do it.”
Most won’t, though. And that’s where the real problems for a society lie. But that’s a problem for the real world, and you’ve already made it obvious you’re not equipped to deal with that, or even remotely interested in so doing.
But keep right on telling your readers what you think they expect to hear – and you probably do know what they expect. It takes a Big Moron to know a bunch of Little Morons. Because principles. And honesty. And, by God, liberty.
You big Champion, you.