Posted on 02/15/2002 6:50:19 AM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt
Libertarians in Santa Barbara, California have scored a victory for freedom of association by helping to nullify a resolution that censured the local Boy Scouts chapter.
On November 14, county supervisors approved a statute forbidding the government from discriminating against private organizations -- even if that group has "incorrect membership requirements," said Santa Barbara LP Secretary Robert Bakhaus.
"Even the U.S. Supreme Court had said the Boy Scouts have the right to associate, and make their own internal rules as they choose," he said. "If LPers could not lead in such a case as local government censuring the Boy Scouts, who would?"
The new statute invalidated a resolution adopted in March by a 3-2 vote, which censured the Boy Scouts for refusing to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters.
County commissioners said the Boy Scout's policy violated the country's anti-discrimination law. The censure would have allowed county officials to prevent Scouts from using local camp grounds, leasing property from the city, or passing out leaflets on school grounds.
However, the Boy Scouts of America said the gay lifestyle violated the organization's oath, which requires members to be "morally straight." It won a U.S Supreme court decision in June 2000, which affirmed its right to decide who could be a Boy Scout.
Bakhaus said Libertarians support the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own membership requirements without government interference -- even if some Libertarians personally oppose those requirements.
"Even bigots have rights," he said. "Private organizations [should have] the right to make their own membership and leadership rules."
After the commission passed its resolution in March, "libertarian sympathizer" Michael Warnken and local LP members collected 20,000 signatures to put an initiative on the ballot to overturn it.
Libertarians helped drum up publicity for the campaign by sending letters to the editors of local papers, appearing at meetings and rallies, and speaking out on local television shows, said Bakhaus.
A number of conservative Republicans also joined the effort, which shows that small organizations "can't afford to be shy about having allies," he said.
"[Our LP affiliate is] too small to abolish taxation or achieve other radical reforms outright. We must first develop our clout by helping enforce the current good laws limiting government, while rallying better liberals and conservatives to uphold the best American traditions of freedom," he said.
However, the coalition ran into opposition from the county attorney's office, which filed a suit to stop the petitioning.
The attorney claimed the initiative language was "vague," and that only a statute or regulation -- not a resolution -- was subject to invalidation by initiative.
In response, activists changed the language of the measure meet state initiative requirements, and hired their own attorney to defend them from legal attacks, said Bakhaus.
With the initiative back on track and a large public turn-out at the commission's November meeting, county commissioners decided to nullify the anti-Boy Scout resolution, said Bakhaus.
"[It] was approved as law without a vote of the people, thanks in part to a large public showing -- but mostly by the fears of an electoral backlash if it went to a vote," he said.
Most importantly, Libertarians learned valuable lessons from the experience, said Bakhaus.
"The [Santa Barbara LP] learned that a countywide petition drive is not outside the bounds of doability," he said. "We also learned that a 1% investment ratio can be leveraged into victory, if that investment consists of extensive knowledge and experience about the intricacies of real politics."
Oh? Apartment managers who engage in racial discrimination against tenants are breaking the law.
...and (someone else) forcing their personal beliefs upon those who wish to view objectionable material, is what? Yes, "forcing their personal beliefs on everyone" - the very same charge you throw at your opponent.
Libertarians think that they can deprive everyone of any kind of standards, whatsoever (creating chaos).
How would you have chaos without initiation of fraud or force? How does a society of voluntary contractual obligations lend itself towards anarchy? The two are mutually exclusive.
True conservatives see that through communities, and groups (like the boy scouts) we can share morals and standards and function as our founders intended.
Communities are not voluntary associations, such as the Scouts. Furthermore, unlike individuals within voluntary associations, communities hold no rights.
"True conservatives" believe in the 9th and 10th Amendments, and would hold that communities can do what they like. I believe you are one of those "true conservatives". Too many in your party however, would enforce their moral values over the entire country. Go ask Roscoe if he wants the fed to arrest Larry Flynt.
That's not what was said. He said tenants are free to engage in discrimination, which is undeniably true. I am free to not rent from anyone I choose.
When is it not wrong to initiate force?
Please note, taking defensive force against someone who constitutes an immediate threat of initiation of force does not qualify as initiation of force.
Hence, self defense against an imminant attacker won't cut it as an example.
Is your community surrounded by razor wire and machine gun towers?
You don't see the difference do you? If you wish to view that material, go find a community that accepts it. You want nudy bars, find a city that allows them. You see, we don't FORCE our morals on anyone. We create communities with common standards, and you can choose to live there and share the standards or live elsewhere. If you want to make a similar org to boyscouts that does allow homos, we won't stop you. You see the difference. We respect communities and groups. Democrats don't.
How would you have chaos without initiation of fraud or force?
If you base force on YOUR definition, people become unable to control the very surroundings that they live in. If my neighbor wanted to have a crack party with naked hookers in his front yard. It becomes my obligation to lock my kids up so they won't see it. Only those without standards would flourish in your dream society.
Furthermore, unlike individuals within voluntary associations, communities hold no rights.
Individuals withing COMMUNITIES hold rights as well. And that includes, just as with the associations, to agree upon standards with each other.
Too many in your party however, would enforce their moral values over the entire country.
Too many in your party would enforce their "no standards" values on the entire country. So instead of giving communities/cities/states the ability to decide whether they want drugs legal, Libertarians wish to force ALL of them to legalize, rendering them without the ability to choose.
I am free to not rent from anyone I choose.
And if you refuse to rent to someone because of their race, you're in violation of our laws.
I just love his moral backbone. (ME referring to him calling the boyscouts bigots)
It is already estabished that it takes more backbone to fight for a slimeballs rights that to cheer for the king. (your reply to me)
What other conclusion can be drawn?
I see your point. Am I free to leave? Yes.
In a constitutional republic, the states could hold different laws, with the fed taking a limited, constitutional role. If that were still the case, we could establish libertarian style communities in the US and I could go to one.
But that's not the case now, is it? Since there are no more 'communities' in the sense of the 9th and 10th Amendments, we would have to say that in practice, the entire US is one big community. And yes, it is surrounded by armed guards.
And yes, if it becomes too restrictive, and fails to observe even the most basic of rights, I will leave.
Do you disagree with that Klan fantasy?
No one is arguing that - I said I can choose whom I rent from, not to, which means that not all discrimination is illegal.
There are plenty of communities in America, with different laws and practices. While I'd like to see the balance of power shift back more in direction of the states and their political subdivisions, that isn't the goal of Libertarianism. It seeks the abolition of community rights, and the establishment of a borderless world.
Please see post #134.
Only those without standards would flourish in your dream society.
Those with no standards would be hopelessly doomed in our society. There would be no one to save you from yourself and save you from the consequences of your irresponsible actions.
No one will force people to employ, house or associate with the immoral element. One would develop standards quickly, or die. Such would not support the accumulation of those who lack standards.
Because of this, those with no standards: substance abusers, the sexual promiscuous, the lazy welfare recipient, etc... would surely perish of their own doing. Hence, the strong dislike of libertarians among liberals/socialists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.