Yes He Can! Can't He?

The case: Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. The result: the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Well, at least until the Obama Justice Department inevitably appeals Judge Virginia A. Phillips' injunction, that is. What a topsy-turvy world! A Republican group scoring an important victory for gay rights? The Democratic administration fighting to keep the deeply unpopular status quo?

What the hell is going on here? Admittedly, matters more complex than I'm making them sound. The Log Cabins are generally out-of-step with their party. Yet, arch-bogeyman Dick Cheney favors gay marriage. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is bound by precedent to uphold the current law of the land. Yet, liberal-savior President Obama is against gay marriage.

Again, what the hell is going on here? Politics, of course. Regarding gay marriage, the Log Cabins, who have little sway, are hardly the voice of their party. And Dick Cheney has nothing to lose now. Obama, on the other hand, made what is most likely a politically motivated statement while campaigning, to appeal to the center, and now has to stick to it.

I doubt Obama actually believes gay marriage is a bad thing, and I think most Americans, be they for or against gay marriage, agree with me. Obama has already condemned DADT. He even pledged to end it this year. Yet, if Obama holds to a politically expedient position, what does that say about him? Will Democrats applaud his so-called integrity?

This is Obama's moment. I'm no fan of his, but I hope he lives up to his promise to end DADT. Obama has a choice: politics or principles. Now that he has the chance, let's see if, yes, he can make the right decision.

Update: Andrew Sullivan makes the same points, more eloquently of course.

Exhuming Malthus

Here we go again.

Slate has a good article on the forever-interest in the ideas of 18th century economist Thomas Malthus, particularly in the realm of fiction, specifically with regard to Jonathan Franzen's Freedom. To describe Malthus' central idea on one foot: human population grows exponentially, while natural resources grow arithmetically. The former will eventually outstrip the latter, leading to a population bomb that will detonate and obliterate us all.

No matter how many times Malthus is refuted, his ideas linger. Ultimately, Malthusians of all stripes are defined by their suspicion, if not hatred, for civilization. Malthus was in the news recently, thanks to the Neo-Malthusian nut who took hostages at the Discovery Channel earlier this month. His inspiration? A novel: My Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn.

It almost makes you miss the influence of Karl Marx.

Adrian Fenty's Spectacular Defeat

Was it Michelle Rhee? Fenty's aloofness toward the black community? His hubris with regard to his reelection campaign? The heavy whiff of nepotism that accompanied his appointments?

Megan McArdle thinks gentrification was largely to blame for Fenty's loss:

When it became clear that Fenty was going to lose, there was a lot of shock going around in the circles I live and work in--which is to say, mostly white professionals who live in DC's gentrified, or gentrifying, precincts. After all, there's little question that things have gotten much better under Fenty, and not just for white people. The truly abysmal schools are being reformed, parks are being built, crime is slowly improving, the city is getting streetcars desired by almost everyone except the folks who live directly on the tracks . . . so why did voters just kick him out?

I don't think you can quite explain it by saying that Fenty's modestly corrupt (too-expensive contracts have gone to friends, though those friends seem to have mostly done the work very well). Marion Barry has remained quite popular here through much more serious violations, and in general, the corruption now pales in comparison to the pervasive corruption that has been uncovered in multiple city agencies, which long predates Fenty's administration.

Most people agree that this is ultimately a proxy battle over gentrification. It's all rather nebulous, because of course Vincent Gray hasn't campaigned on rolling back gentrification. He seems to support all the services Fenty has expanded, with the possible exception of the school reforms. Instead, the theme of his campaign--and the more generalized opposition to Fenty--has centered around respect and process.

She continues:

Gentrification represents a real loss to people who can't afford to stay. They've lived in the city a long time; they have networks of friends and relatives, and institutions like churches, that are built around proximity. Why should they favor a city that provides more services--and then sees real estate prices spike, so that they can't afford to stay around to enjoy them? There are probably a number of voters for whom the status quo is vastly preferable to a situation where Fenty manages to improve the schools enough that middle class voters start a bidding war for homes in the district.

Certainly for the teachers and the taxi drivers--both groups huge opponents of Fenty--this is about real economic loss and changes to their jobs that make them less pleasant.

But no one comes right out and talks about the fact that they are now worse off; instead they talk about how Fenty has run roughshod over council process, or that he hasn't respected some group . . the teachers, the council members, "the community". So our mayoral election has become a debate over which groups in the city are worthy of respect, rather than what concrete improvements can be made in peoples' lives. Because in a city dysfunctional, there are no changes that make everyone better off.

I don't know whether the voters who selected Vincent Gray understand at some level that as long as the quality of life in the city continues to improve, gentrification will continue apace. Vincent Gray didn't force them to consciously make that choice; he made vague promises about things like inclusionary zoning which are supposed to keep more affordable housing in the district. These initiatives will not work, but at least they sound hopeful. And the people who voted for Gray are willing to hope because they think that he, unlike Fenty, respects their concerns.

The implications of her argument, if correct, are provocative. It only follows that a segment of D.C. believed things have been getting better, yet actively voted against progress. In fact, a recent poll showed that most Washingtonians thought the district was heading in the right direction. The same poll showed Fenty trailing behind Gray.

I think McArdle's argument is persuasive, but Fenty's bafflingly inept reelection campaign certainly played a large part in his loss. The Washington Post's surprisingly good analysis, published today, is the best argument for this view.

But I think McArdle nails it with her prediction of what to expect from Mayor Gray:

I don't know how good a mayor Gray will be--he seems like a nice guy, but nice guys often have a hard time getting things done in fractious cities, and his campaign platform is pretty empty of actual proposals. I think this is probably a tragedy for the utterly dysfunctional school system, but I doubt that Gray is going to do much to roll back the other changes, like the change in the taxi fare system, that have made the city a better place.

And for good or ill, I doubt he'll do anything about gentrification. Inclusionary zoning has, as far as I know, proven an excellent way to subsidize home building in poor neighborhoods, and to provide below-market housing for relatively middle class retirees, but it has not, as far as I am aware, ever succeeded in keeping a neighborhood's economic mix from changing. The forces altering DC right now are like a runaway freight train. In 2000, the population of DC was 30% white and 60% black; by 2006-2008, those numbers were 36% and 54%, respectively. Meanwhile, the percentage living below the poverty level dropped from over 20% to under 18%. On a demographic timescale, that is lightning fast. If gentrification keeps up at that pace, the lines are going to cross sometime in the next 10 to 15 years.

Vincent Gray could throw his body in front of the freight train and it wouldn't even slow down. The change in the city may stop on its own; no trend continues forever. But the city is now good enough that many affluent people who used to flee to the suburbs now want to live here--and their presence is attracting non-government services which make it attractive enough to lure still other people to follow them. Unless Gray starts an active campaign to make things worse, the core issue that seems to have animated this campaign is largely out of his hands.

Progress marches onward? Washingtonians can only hope.

Things Fall Apart

Guess who said this of Obamacare:

[He] told The Associated Press this week that he considered the law “to be the greatest failure, modern failure, of political leadership in my lifetime.”

Newt Gingrich? Wrong. Rush Limbaugh? Nope. Glenn Beck? [Loud negative buzzer sound!] Barack Obama? Maybe in 2012.

It was former Georgia Governor Roy Barne, a Democrat. Here's the entire NYT article.

This sentence is particularly surprising:

Mr. Obama, when asked at his news conference Friday about Democrats who are running against his plan, said only that “people are going to make the best argument they can right now, and they’re going to be taking polls of what their particular constituents are saying and trying to align with that.”

I admit I'm a novice to the art of politicking, but Obama's admission seems too honest. His statement would have sounded cynical coming from a Republican. But when spoken by the head of the Democratic Party, who has every reason to sugarcoat and spin, his words peal with hard truth.

I Think I Need a New Eyeglass Rx...

...because I just read this:

President Obama said Friday that if the midterm elections become a referendum on which political party has the most effective agenda to improve the economy, rather than a decision on its current state, "the Democrats will do very well."

And if the midterm elections become a referendum on which political party has the juiciest sex scandals, it will be a Republican landslide. Unfortunately for the Dems, the midterm elections will be a referendum on three economic issues: the financial and auto bailouts (this being the first election since), the stimulus bill (ditto), and unemployment. Oh, and health care.

Also, this is funny:

Obama highlighted several new economic proposals this week, including business tax breaks for research and investments, that Republicans have said are designed chiefly to appeal to voters this campaign season.

Republicans, please. Targeted tax breaks that purchase discrete and organized blocs of voters? Your lily-white consciences must be scandalized by the very notion.

(Mirrored from 100MC.)

Détente

Kelsey responds to my response:

I, too, am an atheist, and I struggle with the illogical, irrational and illiberal tendencies of all religions and Islam is no exception. I think for me (and probably for a lot of lefties) I often get unduly defensive because I have seen so many attack Islam on the basis of it's inherent violence in an attempt to paint Muslims as somehow subhuman.

Again, eloquent and well put. If only we were all as thoughtful as Ms. Pince. I'm glad Kelsey reminded me that some who seemingly share my criticism of Islam are the real subhumans. No doubt.

On Denouncing Islam

Kelsey Pince, a friend and fellow blogger, responds to my previous post, eloquently (and patiently), via her iPhone:

The president and others speaking out understand that we're fighting the perception of being at war with Islam. The Quran burning would be seen as proof in many minds that we are, thus putting moderate Muslims in the unfortuate position of trying to defend a country that seems to hate all Muslims. Finally, having legitimate concerns about an occupied peoples reponse to this kind of provocation doesn't negate the idea that Islam is by nature peaceful.

Kelsey brings up a salient point: we are at war in two largely-Muslim countries. In this case, she's right, we have a complicated and fraught relationship with Islam. One that I didn't acknowledge in my short post.

Kelsey raises another, even more salient point: the physical text of the Koran is viewed, by Islam, as the literal Word of God:

Because it is the word of god, the only part of god believed to be sent to man, it's a closer comparison to Jesus himself than the bible. Burning the quran is roughly equal to someone burning Jesus.

According to the Christian holy book, "someone" crucified Jesus, that poor bastard. Some (many?) think that someone is the Jewish people. We rightly condemn these troglodytes for holding a grudge under the auspices of a ridiculous notion. In fact, we, the Urbane and Erudite, lampoon the nutty beliefs of Christians and Jews all the time. Think: anti-evolution (and science), anti-homosexuality, anti-sex, anti-abortion (and woman), transubstantiation, etc, etc, etc. Actually, these are mostly nutty Christian beliefs. All, except for transubstantiation, are shared by Islam.

And that's my point. There's a sensitivity and an over-accommodation by the left (and many on the right) toward the anti-liberal* religion of Islam that (again, rightly) is not offered to the anti-liberal religion of Christianity. Crazy is crazy. The only difference, if I call Islam crazy, I'm worse than those aforementioned troglodytes. I'm a monster.

I know that would-be Koran burner in Florida isn't worked up into a lather over the illiberality of Islam. He's a Christian pastor, for Christ's sake. But if I, an atheist, proposed to burn Korans for the cause of reason, would I receive thunderous applause? Disregarding the crudeness of the act -- I respect books too much to burn them -- is there not a unique acceptance of the wacky principles of this particular religion, even among the secular, that would result in a wave of disgust against me?

As for Kelsey's first point, we are not "at war with Islam," but we ought to be at war, intellectually, against the anti-liberal aspects of Islam (and those of Christianity, and every other anti-liberal philosophy). Any other response is cowardice, pure and simple. Political correctness demands that we treat all beliefs equally in public discourse. If so, why argue over our values in the first place?

*By anti-liberal, I mean in opposition to reason and individual rights.

Islam and Peace

Am I the only one confused by the current narrative coming mostly (though not exclusively) from the left on Islam? Islam is a religion of peace, in fact "[it] is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace." As long as you don't make a Muslim angry: "You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities." Both quotes were from President Obama.

A thought experiment: I announce that I'm planning on burning a pile of Tipitakas, to show how intolerant I am of Buddhism. Let's imagine the reaction. How likely would this be seen as the opening act of holy war? How would the worldwide Buddhist community react? Would my stunt garner reactions from General Petraeus and President Obama? Would it even be national news?

What does it mean to be a religion of peace?

What the WHAT?

I'm beginning to think Alvin Greene's candidacy is nothing more than an elaborate, Andy Kaufman-style prank. How else to explain the below, official, rap video?

Update: Greene's people didn't produce the video, though Greene says he wants to "make sure everybody hears it."

[HT Ezra Klein.]

Alvin Greene: Enemy of Communism

Alvin Greene gave a speech yesterday to the Manning, SC chapter of the NAACP, one that managed to be as bungling and awkward as his interviews. The speech, mostly an amateurish string of bromides (even for a political speech), went from B- to A+ when he humbly proclaimed that America must "reclaim the country from the terrorists and the communists." Say what? Is this Alvin Greene's evaluation of America's majority political party (his own), or does he know something we don't about who's really pulling the strings in Washington?

Theory and Practice

It's unconscionable that many on the left, people who are appalled by the political doctrine of Nazism, remain vaguely sympathetic to communism. That communist iconography is seen as a kitschy and cool addition to hipster gear is bad enough. But the deafening yawn that greets the politics of an outspoken communist (and Nobel-prize-winning) writer like Jose Saramago is sickening. A sharp, and nicely argued, op-ed by Jeff Jacoby on the recent death of Saramago shines a cleansing light on this dichotomy:

At this late date, there is no excuse for regarding communism and its defenders with one whit less revulsion than we regard neo-Nazis or white supremacists. Saramago’s communism should not have been indulged, it should have been despised. It should have been as great a blot on his reputation as if he had spent the last 41 years as an advocate of murderous repression and cruelty. For that, in a nutshell, is what it means to be an “unabashed’’ and “hormonal’’ communist.

Anyone who imagines that the horrors of communist rule is a thing of the past ought to spend a few minutes with, say, the State Department’s latest human rights report on North Korea. (Sample passage: “Methods of torture . . . included severe beatings, electric shock, prolonged periods of exposure to the elements, humiliations such as public nakedness, confinement for up to several weeks in small ‘punishment cells’ in which prisoners were unable to stand upright or lie down . . . and forcing mothers recently repatriated from China to watch the infanticide of their newborn infants.’’) Communism is not, as its champions like to claim, an appealing doctrine that has been perverted by monstrous regimes. It is a monstrous doctrine that hides behind appealing rhetoric. It is mass crime embodied in government. Nothing devised by human beings has caused more misery or proven more brutal.

Some try to distinguish the doctrine of communism from its application. It's a noble theory, but it just didn't work in practice, they beseech. In fact (and I mean in fact), communism is wretched in theory, as was made clear by its practice.

What makes a theory good? My objection is not only political (or moral), but epistemological. A good theory is one that successfully translates in its implementation. If I had a theory that flapping one's arms will result in flight, how good is my theory? My intention, no doubt, is good. There goes the need for the aviation sector. Just think of all the oil that will be saved (a nice fuck-you to BP). But, as soon as dead bodies begin to pile up below cliffs, would the proper reaction be: well, the dead didn't flap correctly -- it's still a good theory?

Was it the depravity of the human body that prevented it from defying gravity? If man's body were "better," would the theory work in practice? When do you stop condemning man and begin to question the soundness of a theory?

An Odious Anniversary

Via Cafe Hayek.

Results Without Cost

No surprise here, from an NYT poll:

Overwhelmingly, Americans think the nation needs a fundamental overhaul of its energy policies, and most expect alternative forms to replace oil as a major source within 25 years. Yet a majority are unwilling to pay higher gasoline prices to help develop new fuel sources.

All we have to do now is figure out how to have cake and eat it, too.

Trainwreck for U.S. Senate

Thank you, thank you, thank you, democrats of South Carolina.

Who's Afraid of Wal-Mart?

The most readily accepted myth propagated by the enemies of Wal-Mart is that the superstore drives out mom and pop grocers when it moves into a new town. It's a myth that plays well with anti-corporate leftism, as well as America's general romance with small business over "the big guy." Even those who consider themselves "pro-business" often lament the destruction of a scrappy David at the hands of the smiley-faced Goliath of Bentonville. Yet, as economist Russ Roberts has noted, it's not the mom and pops who suffer when a new Wal-Mart opens -- it's other Goliaths, namely large supermarket chains.

The WSJ has an illuminating article that reveals the extent to which these large chains use feel-good populist channels to keep out competition:

As Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has grown into the largest grocery seller in the U.S., similar battles have played out in hundreds of towns like Mundelein. Local activists and union groups have been the public face of much of the resistance. But in scores of cases, large supermarket chains including Supervalu Inc., Safeway Inc. and Ahold NV have retained Saint Consulting to block Wal-Mart, according to hundreds of pages of Saint documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with former employees.

Saint has jokingly called its staff the "Wal-Mart killers." P. Michael Saint, the company's founder, declines to discuss specific clients or campaigns. When read a partial list of the company's supermarket clients, he responds that "if those names are true, I would say I was proud that some of the largest, most sophisticated companies were so pleased with our success and discretion that they hired us over the years."

Supermarkets that have funded campaigns to stop Wal-Mart are concerned about having to match the retailing giant's low prices lest they lose market share. Although they have managed to stop some projects, they haven't put much of a dent in Wal-Mart's growth in the U.S., where it has more than 2,700 supercenters—large stores that sell groceries and general merchandise. Last year, 51% of Wal-Mart's $258 billion in U.S. revenue came from grocery sales.

This phenomenon of economically interested parties hiding behind a more politically palatable cause is not new. Clemson economist Bruce Yandle famously named this tactic "Bootleggers and Baptists" in his 1983 article in Regulation Magazine. The name comes from his example of criminal bootleggers who quietly support religious groups in the enactment of blue laws, which increase the demand for their services by restricting the legal sale of liquor. What's fascinating (and disheartening) about the WSJ article is the emergence of firms, in this case the oh-so-perfectly-named Saint Consulting Group, who facilitate and profit from the maneuver:

Mr. Saint, a former newspaper reporter and political press secretary, founded his firm 26 years ago. It specializes in using political-campaign tactics—petition drives, phone banks, websites—to build support for or against controversial projects, from oil refineries and shopping centers to quarries and landfills. Over the years, it has conducted about 1,500 campaigns in 44 states. Mr. Saint says about 500 have involved trying to block a development, and most of those have been clandestine.

For the typical anti-Wal-Mart assignment, a Saint manager will drop into town using an assumed name to create or take control of local opposition, according to former Saint employees. They flood local politicians with calls, using multiple phones to make it appear that the calls are coming from different people, the former employees say.

They hire lawyers and traffic experts to help derail the project or stall it as long as possible, in hopes that the developer will pull the plug or Wal-Mart will find another location.

"Usually, clients in defense campaigns do not want their identities disclosed because it opens them up to adverse publicity and the potential for lawsuits," Mr. Saint wrote in a book published by his firm.

No doubt they don't. The type of person who makes opposition to Wal-Mart a badge of moral virtue would find it awkward to discover his bedfellow is actually a big bad corporation like Safeway, Giant, or Supervalu -- not the lovable corner grocer.

Private Discrimination, Continued

Commenting on my post on private discrimination, restaurant refugee writes:

The comparison between discrimination based on attire and that based upon race is a false construct. One chooses attire, one does not choose that latter. I understand that the author was making the point that the owners of the establishments cited in the post were practicing a de facto sexism and racism. However that ignores the larger point that business owners have a legitimate interest and prerogative to mandate attire and norms that contribute to the experience of all guests. Does the author similarly take issue with restaurants that require jacket and tie? Tennis clubs that mandate one dress is tennis whites? What about pools that limit swimming attire to that which was designed for that purpose?

I apologize if I was unclear. I support the right of private establishments to set the standards of decorum within their four walls, be it jacket and tie, tennis whites, or no high heels. My point was that some of these standards could be inspired by racism and sexism, and still remain perfectly legal. I return to the example of my former employer, the gay club that didn't allow high heels in the club. The purpose of that rule was never in doubt: it was meant to keep women out. And it worked.

I don't deny refugee's larger point: "One chooses attire, one does not choose [their race or gender]." But the discrimination involved in barring the former rather than the latter is a difference of degree, not of kind. That many women wear high heels to clubs is undeniable, as is the fact that many young black men come to Adams Morgan on a Friday night wearing Timberland boots and baggy clothing. Club owners are counting on the fact that violators of their dress codes will be unwilling to conform to their rules, that they'll just shrug and go somewhere else.

Refugee continues:

The Title of the Civil Rights act the author finds objectionable deals with “public accommodations” and provides that no business that provides such accommodations may discriminate. The author makes the libertarian position on the matter clear: discrimination is immoral but government should not prohibit private business from doing it. Let us suppose that the author is right. So when I hang a sign in my restaurant that says “Whites not served here,” I would be within my rights. If a white person enters in spite of that sign, I ask him/her to leave, s/he refuses, what then? Shall I call the police? Am I authorized to forcibly remove him/her? Shall the police arrest that person for trespassing? Shall we spend government monies to prosecute people in the aid of racism?

My answer to refugee's hypothetical is an unequivocal yes, it would be within his rights as the owner to keep white people out of his establishment. If the white person in question refused to leave the restaurant, refugee could call the police to remove him (just as an Adams Morgan club owner could for someone flouting their dress code). The question is, why would anyone want to patronize an establishment that openly discriminates against them? And would there not be a public backlash against any business that was so openly racist or sexist?

As for the expenditure of "government monies to prosecute people in the aid of racism," those monies are in part provided by the racist business owners via their taxes. I know it's hard to swallow, but even despicable individuals have the right to the protection of their property rights and the standards of trade they see fit to enforce.

All trade entails certain conditions between both parties, be it buyer or seller. A wacky homophobic landlord has the right to not rent me his apartment if he (likely) suspects I'm gay, and I have the right to deny him my business if I catch a whiff of homophobia from him. I'm better served to not be legally protected from his homophobia and have to suffer the subtle hostilities that would surely come later. Likewise, it would have been better if my former employer had posted a "no women allowed" sign in front of the club. I've witnessed the hostility the few women who made it into the club faced from some of the bar staff (and the male patrons). The reaction of those turned away by the "no high heels" rule tended to be some form of "fuck you." And rightly so. Had the women who managed to gain entry to the club known the spirit of the rule, I suspect their reaction would have been similar.

Finally, I never said the government is "inherently evil," nor did I mean to imply it. Within its proper scope, government prevents a civilized society from devolving into barbarism and chaos. Government isn't evil. It isn't even a "necessary evil." The proper function of government is unquestionably good. I don't think this contradicts my position that the government should have no authority to protect us from the private discrimination of troglodytes. Unfortunately, troglodytes have rights too.

America's Insane Immigration Policy

My mother, who has lived in this country for 27 years, just got her green card a few weeks ago. She is now, finally, a legal resident because I, a recently-naturalized citizen (two years now), was able to sponsor her. All of this was the result of my father's decision to marry an American, just so he could sponsor me. (At the time he knew he would ultimately succumb to cancer.) It was the best gift anyone has given me.

So, as an immigrant and an American-by-choice, this story in the NYT makes me incensed:

It was an unusual sign, even for a restaurant here along the Maine coast, where seasonal home-grown businesses are a way of life.

“Closed. Gone to try and get a new visa,” read the hand-scrawled message taped inside the window of Laura’s Kitchen, a cozy eatery that specialized in corned beef hash and omelets and where the tiny tables were still set with brightly colored napkins. “Hope to see you in the spring. Dean & Laura.”

The sign turned out to be overly optimistic. Dean and Laura Franks, a British couple who opened the restaurant in 2000, found that after nine years of running their business, they could not renew their visa, forcing them to shutter the restaurant and leave the country.

The Franks are among thousands of people who enter the United States each year on E-2 visas, which allow citizens from countries with which the United States has certain trade treaties to invest in businesses and work here. The visas generally are renewed every two years, but there is no limit on how many times they can be renewed. Still, they are not intended as a path to permanent residency or citizenship.

But now, immigration advocates say they are hearing more and more accounts of renewal applications being turned down. It has been an enigmatic process for the Franks, uprooting their lives even though they have paid all their taxes, own the restaurant and its adjacent rental house, and have no debts except a mortgage on their home in Arundel, about 35 miles away.

“This is the forgotten story of immigration,” said Angelo Paparelli, a prominent immigration lawyer in California. “The headlines deal with Arizona and border crossings, but these are real people too. This is what happens when you play by the rules.”

America's immigration policy is a disgrace. It treats productive individuals like criminals, who constantly fear deportation by a faceless bureaucracy, more concerned with following inane rules than the human beings whose lives they have the power to destroy. What's worse, if the USCIS suddenly sought 100% compliance it would result in the decimation of American economy, starting with the low-wage service sector, which is overwhelmingly employed by illegal immigrants. But that's not their goal. They pick and choose. They (rightfully) turn a blind eye to the kitchens of America's restaurants, the hotel staff who clean the sheets of American businessmen, the workmen who build our great structures. Yet the entrepreneurs who open businesses, who create wealth in the country, are singled out -- because they play by the rules.

Legislation Can't Stop Discrimination

Liberals have declared open season on libertarianism ever since Rand Paul (not the namesake of Ayn Rand) said he disagreed with the parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that made illegal private discrimination based on race.

Bryan Caplan clarifies the standard libertarian position as such:

1. Government discrimination should be illegal.
2. Private discrimination should be legal.
3. Private discrimination is immoral.

I agree with all three points, but I want to make an additional point: you can't legislate away odious behavior; you only make odious individuals more crafty with their discrimination.

I used to work at a gay club that refused entry to anyone wearing high-heeled shoes. Ostensibly, the rule was for the safety of said patrons. The club has a couple of steep staircases, the managers claimed. People could get hurt. In reality, the rule was intended to keep out women, something many gay establishments quietly encourage. (The staff's general animosity toward the fairer sex always made me bristle.) Tellingly, even though the club actively enforced the rule, it was overlooked with regard to drag queens, who tend to wear the equivalent of skyscrapers on their feet. The club kept out women without having to post a sign saying "women not allowed." (It has since dropped that rule. Not coincidentally, more women can be seen on a Friday or Saturday night.)

Dress codes are used to discriminate against race, as well. I live in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C., which contains a handful of popular bars. A few have "strictly enforced" dress codes posted in front that state anyone wearing the following will be denied entry:

• Timberland boots
• Hats
  
• Baggy clothing
• Long white t-shirts
• Logos
  
• Labels
• Hoods
  
• Jerseys
• Athletic wear
• Tank tops
  
• Camouflage
• Ripped clothing
  

In other words, the attire typically associated with rap culture, i.e., black male youth (ripped clothing being the only exception). The establishments don't say they won't allow young black men to enter, but their dress codes effectively do so.

Of course, there's more going on here than just outright hatred for women and black men. If asked, I'm sure the proprietors of the Adams Morgan bars with these dress codes would claim most people, black or white, who wear the above listed items tend to be more rowdy. I can attest to the fact that some of the young women who happened to wear high heels at the gay club tended to get loud and boisterous. (We saw a number of bachelorette parties come through on a regular basis.) Still, most women were barred entry by the high-heels rule, not just the minority of rowdy ones.

My point isn't whether these dress codes are right or wrong. The point is, they keep a specific subset of the population out, legally. Still, most establishments don't have these rules, since it's not good business to prevent customers from patronizing them. Besides, the most ubiquitous dress code,"no shirts, no shoes, no service," seems to skew white.

Racism, sexism, all the pernicious isms, can't be wiped away by legislation, like the swipe of some Utopian magic wand. The onus is on patrons, to support or withhold their business. My previous employer decided to remove the high-heels restriction, and business improved. Further, anyone is free to boycott or protest any business that has discriminatory policies. Private individuals have the right to be (or merely appear to be) horrible people, but they don't have the right to be protected from the economic consequences of their actions.

What Tolerance Is and Isn't

The wisdom of Robin Hanson:

“Tolerance” is a feel-good buzzword in our society, but I fear people have forgotten what it means. Many folks are proud of their “tolerance” for gays, working women, Tibetan monks in cute orange outfits, or blacks sitting at the front of the bus. But what they really mean is that they consider such things to be completely appropriate parts of their society, and are not bothered by them in the slightest. That, however, isn’t “tolerance.”

“Tolerance” is where you tolerate things that actually bother you. Things that make you go “ick”, or that conflict with strong intuitions on proper behavior. Once upon a time, the idea of gay sex made most folks quite uncomfortable, and yet many of those folks still advocated tolerance for gay sex. Their argument was not that gay sex isn’t icky, but that a broad society should be reluctant to ban apparently victimless activities merely because many find them icky.

I've been guilty of misusing, and misunderstanding, the concept "tolerance." Hanson's point is so obviously true that it's forcing me to rethink tolerance.

Doesn't "tolerance" stand directly opposed to "integrity?" Isn't there a difference between "political" tolerance and "personal" tolerance? For example, the recent Supreme Court case (which Hansen cites) that struck down a federal statute "criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals." Animal cruelty is a heinous act, no doubt, but the very purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech that may seem unpalatable to many (or most). Yet should those depictions be exempt from moral condemnation, i.e. "personal" intolerance? I don't think so. Just as I think Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow have a right to bleat their inanities, I need not remain quiet and tolerate their views. I can use any means available, like this blog, to be intolerant toward them -- except the physical force of the state.

Tolerance is only a virtue in the political sphere, to protect actions I may despise that don't violate the rights of others. Those crazies who think gays will go to hell have a right to say so. Politically, I must tolerate them. But personally, I have the right to be as intolerant as they are. Only persuasion, personal intolerance of those opposed to "gays, working women, Tibetan monks in cute orange outfits, or blacks sitting at the front of the bus," leads to acceptance. As Alex Tabbarok notes:

[G]ay rights have not advanced because of more tolerance per se, i.e. they have not advanced because more people are willing to accept behavior that bothers them. Advance has occurred because fewer people are bothered by the behavior.

Freedom, Yesterday and Today

In honor of Tax Day, and the debate that has been raging through the blogosphere, I've been thinking about our relative liberty today compared to the 19th century. The gist of the debate is whether Americans were more free in the 19th century, the apex of laissez-faire, given the fact that women, black people, and gays had little political freedom (by modern standards). Bryan Caplan leads the charge pro-Gilded Age, arguing that despite the lack of explicit political freedoms, women had more de facto liberty than they do today. His detractors abound.

It's undeniable that minorities (including women) today are more free qua minority than they were in the 19th century. But it's a moot point. The lack of political freedom for women, black people, gays, etc., was a fact of life across the globe before the 20th century. Sexism, racism, and homophobia were the standard, the status quo of human history. The 19th century was radical because it unfettered the economic activity of a huge portion of individuals (in this case, white males), whose subjugation was the norm throughout history. Yes, the 19th century was far from perfect. Still, name me a country from that era that exhibited our modern standards of equality.

The point that everyone seems to be missing is that America (and the U.K.) were the freest nations on earth, given that bigotry was the norm. Today, bigotry has largely been eliminated from the political sphere, but as a whole we are less free than the freest (straight white) men who existed in the Gilded Age.