151
submitted 7 months ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/globalnews@lemmy.zip

An Australian museum excluded men from an exhibit to highlight misogyny. A man sued for access and won.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/mkwF8

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

From the libertarian point of view, being compelled to do something is bad even if that thing itself isn't all that difficult or unpleasant. I'm a pretty stubborn, libertarian-leaning person myself and I would resent doing even all my favorite things in the world if the government were making me do them.

I still wouldn't make the comparison to slavery myself, but I think that most people are missing how much anti-discrimination laws actually do restrict freedom of speech and of association because most people weren't going to engage in that sort of speech/association anyway. I would compare them to laws against boycotting Israel.

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

I still wouldn't make the comparison to slavery myself

You're the one who made the comparison to it being slavery? There are plenty of things you're not allowed to say, why are you fighting against this instead of the right to make bomb threats?

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

No I'm not, @quindraco@lemm.ee is. As for bomb threats, the violate the non-aggression principle in a way that simply choosing to peacefully opt out of interacting with a person or group of people does not.

(And, for the record, I think that the Civil Rights Act in the USA is, on the whole, a good thing. I just don't think it's costless.)

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

I replied to you because you defended their position. So yes you are.

Who do you propose should enforce this non-aggression principle? And why do you think it's okay to tell someone what to say just because you find it aggressive? Just admit you're fine with limiting my freedom of speech you just think racists should be allowed to say what they wish as long as it isn't your definition of aggressive and move on.

[-] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago

how about having to wear out body and mind to earn money to not be excluded from the wealth society has produced? Or is that the part you gladly submit to?

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 months ago

Libertarians don't see it in those terms. Wealth doesn't belong to society, and therefore there's no implication that all members of society are entitled to it. Not having any wealth sucks and so does having to do onerous work in order to survive, but it's easy to imagine how if you were rich, you wouldn't want your money taken away and given to the poor, and so it's hard to fault the rich for feeling that way too.

this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
151 points (98.1% liked)

Interesting Global News

2613 readers
326 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS