Up until a couple years ago, I thought of libertarians as socially liberal, but anti-tax conservatives. Then I realized they are closeted racists. Now I find it was my idiot mistake to leave off homophobes and bigots from the description. This book goes into the flawed reasoning behind the Supreme Courts decision to allow Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to discriminate against gays (and atheists) based on a right of free association. It shows that in an extreme interpretation of the ruling: it means all anti-discrimination law are unconstitutional, or we are allowed to disobey laws whenever doing so is perceived to endorse a message (conforming to a non-discrimination statute counters the BSA message against gays). What has it to do with libertarians? The ruling is one which endorses a libertarian viewpoint that the state should not regulate the private sector. A viewpoint which the book points out came about many years ago as a way to justify discrimination against blacks post-abolition. Even today racist libertarians like Rand Paul want to repeal the Civil Rights Act!
Reading this book today (it was published in 2009), I was struck by the fact that actually the US military is more advanced than the BSA with it's repeal of don't ask don't tell. BSA is headquartered in Texas and is fairly overtly religious with the Scout oath starting off: "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country". These two facts lead me to believe the BSA is pretty much a lost cause, and probably would not change their rules, unless the costs of being homophobic increase. I hope they do.
It would be nice to think that the Boy Scouts are a truly inconsequential private institution, but in fact, quite a number of boys go into the Scouts. The fact that it gets preferential treatment in many places as a de-facto socializing agent for children actually says that plays a not small role in society and should not be allowed to discriminate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment