1. Good piece. Only flaw here is that, while, yes, the state passes laws in response to people and business “expressing interest” i.e. bribing/lobbying, and if there were no bigotry by such people there would be no such laws, but thats just as much of a cop out as the “if there were no state” argument. There are as many, if not more, women in the voting population (what? 53% women vs 47% men?), than men, who are JUST as capable of bribing/lobbying the state to prevent such laws, or EVEN to pass misandric(ous?) laws against men, establishing female privilege (which is exactly what many MRA types claim has been happening in recent decades). So the real issue is that the entire issue is an unconstitutional overreach of legislative authority to even have such laws in the first place, for or against women, for or against privilege. De-privilege-izing the law in either direction, is what is necessary. At the same time, aren’t there things for which privilege is necessary? Women need to be able to breast feed in public accommodations without being ejected by management/owners. Thats privilege, as one tiny example.

  2. Jonathan Jaech

    Everybody is bigoted to some degree, even if only against those perceived to be bigoted against the wrong people or ideas. It could be argued that bigotry is an inherent aspect of the human condition, because of the immediate need to make judgments based on limited information, or for other reasons. Whether or not that proposition is true, it seems safe to assume that bigotry, prejudice and privilege will also tend to exist in a stateless society, but it will not be possible for bigots to hide behind the moral cover of the state and use the privilege of a monopoly on law making to enact laws that systematize violence against disfavored classes or ideas. Whether the elimination of the state will increase or decrease privilege and oppression will depend on how the resulting stateless society is self-organized. If free to choose, how many people will prefer to invest their life energies in communities that are more tolerant of diversity, versus communities that are more exclusionary? It appears that both preferences will exist. The question for the moment is whether libertarians and voluntaryists with conflicting preferences on this question will be willing to allay themselves to work together for the diminution of state power, or cling to state power to enforce their preferences on those who do not share them.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.