The entire justification for limiting the state stems from it being considered a barrier to individual freedom. If you are seeking to maximize individual freedom, you inevitably end up conflicting with social norms.
Individual freedom from tyranny, not from existence. That's why Rousseau goes off into pure illiberalism when he starts screaming about even bodily constraints of the mind being a form of repression. Liberalism doesn't see gravity as oppression. Individual freedom is what allows you to morally order yourself in the society you are in. Meaning you'll end up co-operating with, or even building, social norms for you and your community. Liberalism allows you to actually engage in a moral order, rather than having a tyrant proscribe morality at the point of a gun, while himself abiding by no morals at all.
What do you do when societal norms are "sexist" and "racist" then, i.e. businesses refusing to have blacks or women or whatever as workers or customers?
What do you do when societal norms are "sexist" and "racist"
No idea what these means. Honestly, it means basically anything.
. businesses refusing to have blacks or women or whatever as workers or customers?
Do something different with your business. This is what happened for centuries before the Civil Rights movement. What would always basically happen is that racial discrimination laws were typically local. They'd be enacted when there was an influx of migrants (of whatever group), and would normally be repealed within 40 years at the local level as those groups had completely integrated by that time.
Yours doesn't serve whites? Great, mine does. If you're my neighbor? I'll tell you that's dumb and silly. If we're good neighbors, and my moral ordering is right, I should be able to convince you something about my moral framework while I'm living it. Especially over the next 4 decades.
This is what happened for centuries before the Civil Rights movement.
And the Civil Rights and feminists movement emerged in part because that wasn't "working." Feminists, for example, concluded that they needed to not be financially dependent on their husbands in order to maximize their freedom thus resulting in anti-discrimination laws and welfare state expansion.
Yours doesn't serve whites? Great, mine does.
You're ignoring two things here. If you violate social norms with your business, other businesses can work against you. Thus, your supply chain, advertising opportunities, etc. can become compromised. Secondly, you are assuming that those who are being discriminated against have enough straightforward access to accommodating businesses so as to not be fucked.
I don't even know why we are arguing this in extract terms. History has played out in accordance with what I've been saying. There is little need for abstract theory here.
The entire justification for limiting the state stems from it being considered a barrier to individual freedom. If you are seeking to maximize individual freedom, you inevitably end up conflicting with social norms.
Individual freedom from tyranny, not from existence. That's why Rousseau goes off into pure illiberalism when he starts screaming about even bodily constraints of the mind being a form of repression. Liberalism doesn't see gravity as oppression. Individual freedom is what allows you to morally order yourself in the society you are in. Meaning you'll end up co-operating with, or even building, social norms for you and your community. Liberalism allows you to actually engage in a moral order, rather than having a tyrant proscribe morality at the point of a gun, while himself abiding by no morals at all.
K
What do you do when societal norms are "sexist" and "racist" then, i.e. businesses refusing to have blacks or women or whatever as workers or customers?
No idea what these means. Honestly, it means basically anything.
Do something different with your business. This is what happened for centuries before the Civil Rights movement. What would always basically happen is that racial discrimination laws were typically local. They'd be enacted when there was an influx of migrants (of whatever group), and would normally be repealed within 40 years at the local level as those groups had completely integrated by that time.
Yours doesn't serve whites? Great, mine does. If you're my neighbor? I'll tell you that's dumb and silly. If we're good neighbors, and my moral ordering is right, I should be able to convince you something about my moral framework while I'm living it. Especially over the next 4 decades.
And the Civil Rights and feminists movement emerged in part because that wasn't "working." Feminists, for example, concluded that they needed to not be financially dependent on their husbands in order to maximize their freedom thus resulting in anti-discrimination laws and welfare state expansion.
You're ignoring two things here. If you violate social norms with your business, other businesses can work against you. Thus, your supply chain, advertising opportunities, etc. can become compromised. Secondly, you are assuming that those who are being discriminated against have enough straightforward access to accommodating businesses so as to not be fucked.
I don't even know why we are arguing this in extract terms. History has played out in accordance with what I've been saying. There is little need for abstract theory here.