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."
In only very limited ways. Sure they can do little things like zoning. But read the Constitution very closely, and see if states and communities have the rights they are afforded under the Constitution.
I for one wouldn't seek to destroy the ability of all communities to establish moral standards. I would compromise. I'd be willing to settle for the constitutional republic the founders gave us. However, I'd campaign on a local level for a libertarian government that only prohibited force or fraud.
If only you could agree to that. You might think you would, but would you give up the federal drug war and send the issue back to the states? Could you do the same for abortion, and all the other things you'd like to use the fed for that aren't anywhere in Article I, Section 8?
Unless you are, you shouldn't talk to me of communities and states rights because you don't respect them to begin with.
Many Libertarians on FR deny that communities even have rights. Glad to see a different approach.
You might think you would, but would you give up the federal drug war and send the issue back to the states?
That sounds like a policy direction worth considering.
I'm glad you asked. Us libertarians debate such things amongst ourselves in order to find solutions. For your dilemma, we have given our libertarian stamp of approval to deeded communities.
In such a community, you would contractually consent to not do things that would disturb your neighbors. If your neighbor violated his contract and started having crack and hooker parties on his front yard in front of your kids, he would be guilty of fraudulent breach of contract, and you could have him evicted, and damages done to you would be remedied in civil court.
This solves your problem without resorting to 3 AM Paramilitary style assaults upon your neighbor, and possibly yourself, if they get the wrong address.
Oh, and all those prison guards that would have guarded your neighbor in jail for the next 10-20 years would have to go get real jobs. The money you save in taxes for their salaries could go back into your neighborhood if you like, to make it a nicer place. Maybe you could spend it on a nice new park for your kids in the spot where your crackhead neighbor used to live.
Whattd'ya think?
"Even bigots have rights," he said. [speaking generally]
I just love his moral backbone. -TA79-
It is already estabished that it takes more backbone to fight for a slimeballs rights that to cheer for the king. - tpaine -
What other conclusion can be drawn?
Indeed, -- such a conclusion could obviously only be drawn by a liar, - by a snotty little punk, like you, attempting a smear.
To equate the scouts with slimeballs only took place in your fevered imagination, you scum. -- Say it isn't so, or lose even more of your rapidly disappearing crediblity.
Keep up these kind of crap argumenitive tactics, and soon only the roscoes of this site will respond to you with anything but scorn.
Wow, I think we have an agreement.
Who'da thunk it.
Kind of funny that the solution to our problem was solved over 200 years ago. Founders were very wise.
That's nice but if the guy was having these parties, I wouldn't be to satisfied with a court summons. I would like the activity to cease and desist. That usually takes an arrest. When I get a speeding ticket, I just try not to get caught, but I still speed. See what I'm getting at?
And as for these deeded communities, well how big should they be? How much trouble would it be to get an entire city under one deeded community? A city could not function under several different standards. It appears to me this has already been taken care of by our founders with states. States then decide what decisions can be left to counties and cities.
And I don't have a problem with not giving long jail sentences to drug USERS. I think fines and mandatory treatments would suffice.
If you refuse to rent an apartment from any black owner, have you broken the law?
If you refuse to work for any Asian employer, have you broken the law?
"Racial discrimination in housing and employment" is in fact not "illegal."
For some of us.
Do you support the enactment of our current anti-discrimination laws? Do you support in particular the enactment of the federal laws selectively targeting a portion of the discrimination in "housing and employment"?
It wouldn't surprise me that you made that accusation up, like so many others.
You are a practiced liar, as your scout/slimeball remarks above prove.
Are you agreeing with that or not?
Would you prefer fraud be a criminal offense? That would still satisfy libertarian principles. In my example, your neighbor could then be arrested for breach of contract, then you could still pursue your civil case.
And as for these deeded communities, well how big should they be?
The market would decide that. Higher demand will bring more and larger communities.
How much trouble would it be to get an entire city under one deeded community?
Depends on the city. In most cases it wouldn't be easy (not impossible) to get a whole city to agree to a contract, yet those are the problems free people face. We aren't utopians you know, and never said liberty would be easy or free.
It appears to me this has already been taken care of by our founders with states. States then decide what decisions can be left to counties and cities.
You and I both agree on the 9th and 10th Amendment and the ability to establish such places, and we agree that this right is no longer recognized. It is said that SCOTUS sees the 10th as a dead letter. It seems we have a common foe here.
This is how states were started. There is no need. Unless you can claim to own all the rights to your property. You cannot however. The reason being, either the gov first owned the land and sold it to a private owner, or the private owner of the land consented to entering into that contract with his land in exchange for the benefits and protection of being part of that state and nation.
Not that I'm aware of. If you refuse to rent to a prospective tenant because of his or her race, you're in violation of our laws.
Libertarian doctrine would legalize such racial discrimination.
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.