ALAN writes:

Writing in 1963 about the so-called “civil rights” bill then being considered in Congress, Ayn Rand stated that the federal government “has no right to discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others.  It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments.  No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of other men.  A man’s rights are not violated by a private individual’s refusal to deal with him.”

She continued, “if that ‘civil rights’ bill is passed, it will be the worst breach of property rights in the sorry record of American history in respect to that subject…..” [ “Racism,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Sept. 1963, p. 36]

That “civil rights” bill, as we all know, was enacted in 1964. Americans today are still paying for it.

These judgments apply to the case of Gifford vs. New York State.  The Giffords’ refusal to accept agitators for “same-sex marriage” as customers does not harm those people in any way or violate their rights.  If it hurts their feelings, that’s tough.  They were no worse off afterward than they were before they phoned the Giffords.  They were perfectly free to shop elsewhere, ask other private businesses to accept them as customers, or form their own business.  No one is stopping them.  But they will not do that, because they are trained agitators or useful idiots for trained agitators.

The Giffords, who were fined $13,000 for refusing to host a same-sex “wedding” ceremony and have since decided to cease hosting wedding ceremonies at their former farm, are completely in the right and those who are persecuting them for their principled convictions are irredeemably evil.  Any compromise they agree to will cost them dearly.  That is how this game is rigged.  The persecution of such people by busybodies who adorn themselves with pretentious names like “Division of Human Rights” is an example of what Samuel Francis called “anarcho-tyranny”:  “…..we refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that`s the tyranny)…..”  It is a calculated tactic in the Permanent Leftist Revolution against America, white men, Christianity, and Western Civilization.

The very expression “human rights” is both absurd and redundant. “Human rights” as against what?  Boa constrictor rights? Termite rights? Field mouse rights?

Leftists know that ideas like “affirmative action,” “rights” for queers, and “same sex marriage” could never gain credibility or acceptance in an open marketplace where people are free to accept them or reject them.  That is why they depend on the police power of government to enact those ideas into law and then impose them by force of law on everyone.   They demand what they could never earn, and they seek to extinguish the right of any citizen to say No to them and their Leftist agenda.

The very existence of anything called a “Division of Human Rights” is an act of bombast worthy of Stalinist Russia or Communist China, not a nation of people who once (long, long ago) prided themselves on the inviolable rights guaranteed them by their Constitution and the severe limitations on their central government’s power.  This is just a preview of things to come.  Year after year in his work for the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Paul Fromm has chronicled the monstrously evil things Canadian citizens must now endure from the Do-Gooders who make up “Human Rights Commissions” in Canada.  In the tyrannical edicts issued by such Do-Gooders, we are witnessing what George Orwell called “the defense of the indefensible”.

Leftist agitators for Queerism and “human rights commissions” have no right to hold a gun to the head of any private business owners to force them to deal with someone they do not want as a customer any more than those business owners have a right to stand on the sidewalk and push customers into their store.  The use of coercion is what nullifies both.  The Giffords are not coercing anyone.  Their only desire is to be left alone.  It is the Leftist agitators and “human rights” busybodies who are practicing coercion.  That is why they have zero credibility.  Rights and coercion are mutually exclusive.

Feminist “administrative law” judges and “human rights commissioners” with names like “Migdalia” and “Helen” are women who don’t have enough to do in search of excuses to run other people’s lives and businesses.  As with most other Do-Gooders, other people’s rights mean nothing to them.  The right to disagree with them, to express views they do not like, to conduct a private business in a manner they do not approve, and the very thought that other people might have a moral right to say No to them and their Do-Goodism – such things mean nothing to them.  Neither does Aristotle’s Law of Identity.

The concept “same sex marriage” is an expression of moral, philosophical, and linguistic imbecility.  No such thing is possible.  [ See Nelson Hultberg, “Notes on the Institution of Marriage”]  But that does not stop Leftists and Do-Gooders.  They accept no constraints from common sense, all recorded history, the Constitution, the integrity of words, or existence itself—because they are out to revolutionize the world.

Do not imagine that such people are motivated by “compassion” or concern for anyone’s rights.  The lust for power over other people’s lives, property, and businesses is what motivates them.  Attacks on private business owners are a preliminary step toward the ultimate Communist goal: The destruction of private property.

Such agitators and their “Human Rights” commissions are among the greatest threats to Americans’ Constitutional rights and freedom of association as have ever been permitted to acquire unchecked power in this nation’s history.  They have all the moral credibility of mob enforcers.

“Administrative Law” itself is an abomination—because it is non-objective law.  There is no moral, political, or cultural justification for the existence of any form of non-objective law, including so-called “hate speech” and “hate crime” laws.

If traditionalist-minded Americans wish to preserve their Constitutional rights and freedom of association, then they should be prepared to argue (1) that any and all forms of non-objective law should be repealed, (2) that “administrative law” courts should be disestablished, and (3) that Feminist Do-Gooders who want to dictate how other people should live and run their businesses should be stripped of their arbitrary power and forced to find honest work in an open marketplace.  (Of course that last would increase the unemployment lines by millions, since most feminists don’t know how to do anything except instruct other people how to live.)

Ayn Rand was right.  The so-called “civil rights” act of 1964 was and is an abomination, wholly indefensible morally, politically, or culturally.  It set the framework for the exercise of government coercion in the form of forced racial integration, forced busing of children, and government regulation of housing, employment, and private businesses.

That private citizens like the Giffords can be tyrannized, instructed how to run their own business, and punished for not complying with edicts issued by a Leftist-Feminist coalition of busybodies—and that so few American citizens express opposition in principle to those things—is proof beyond doubt that the U.S.A. in which men like Lawrence Auster and I grew up is dead and gone forever.

— Comments —

Buck writes:

I don’t believe that landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act can be overturned.

If I understand The Thinking Housewife’s view, reconstituting good order requires a dominant role by the Church, not a civic/secular remedy. Ayn Rand is an atheist who would argue against any kind of public accommodation based on what she deems “mysticism.” No one is more secular than she.

The radical libertarian view of private property is too extreme for the real world just as is Ayn Rand’s radical objective view. She is as filled with contradiction as are liberatarians. Neither can be moderate.

I agree with Lawrence Auster that the ban on discrimination in public accommodations was justified.

Some form of accommodation must exist. Perhaps Rand would agree with my notion that the Giffords or the bakers should all be allowed to qualify their clients/customers in their ads: “Wedding cakes: We serve the traditional marriage community. Wedding cakes baked for one-man/one-women couples only. See the below list for local same-sex accommodators.”

Let people patronize who they like and let them go where they are welcome. Everyone will get what they need. Let people run their businesses with integrity. Let the market sort a good bit of this out. Let’s find out what people really think. I realize that’s the reason for the public accommodation provision to begin with, but modern liberalism has matured. Liberalism is now an adult with children of its own. Liberalism will do fine with the majority. Let the minority regain some rights.

That won’t fly?

Discrimination upfront and in-your-face is wholly forbidden and criminal.

Like the moronic, “racist” Joe Biden said yesterday to the Detroit castaways: “We must take back America!” But, as Alan writes, it “is dead and gone forever.”

So, what exactly ARE we going to do?

 Laura writes:

We are going to continue to articulate the principles of order, as opposed to anti-order.

Ayn Rand was a libertarian who did not have a comprehensive view of society, but on this idea that government should not coerce anyone to do business with anyone else, she was basically right.

Buck writes:

A personal antidote: I’ve only been run out of a restaurant/bar once. It was in the early 70s. I was with my girl friend and two other couples. We more or less stumbled off a busy Wisconsin Avenue, laughing and having a good time on a mid-Summer day, into a busy corner restaurant in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC. A big table right in the middle of the place was open and we sat talking and laughing, oblivious to our surroundings. After a too-long wait we realized that the wait staff was ignoring us. They appeared not to be interested in accommodating our needs and desires. Then I was hit by a piece of ice. Then another. Ice from drinks began to rain down on us from the surrounding mezzanine above. Looking around now, we realized that we had walked into a den of resentful homosexuals. I’d been away for a few years and wasn’t tuned in to the changes in town. We got up and left, sort of stunned and bewildered.

Not too much later I took a date to what used to be my go-to first-date spot. A quiet and somewhat classier place named The Fireplace because it had a great fireplace. It was on the edge of the now well known DuPont Circle neighborhood of DC. We walked in and looked to be seated. It struck me immediately – not a piece of ice – but a feeling of revulsion. It too had become a homosexual den. Stared at, we quickly walked out. There is always some place else to go.

Neither of those businesses intended to accommodate me. Homosexuals would argue that most places didn’t accommodate them back in the day.

The first place was random. No great loss. Good riddance.

The second place was a temporary loss. Like I said, it was a favorite of mine. Was the tradeoff too great? Not by a long shot. It felt natural. Keep it. I’ll go elsewhere. Like everyone else, they will survive and thrive as long as they do a good business. DuPont Circle is now a homosexual mecca. I’m sure that it is trendy, high-end and lucrative. I don’t go there, so I haven’t experienced it.

It didn’t occur to me to complain to management in either of those places. Making a fuss or protesting or filing a civil rights law suit never crossed my mind. Like wedding planners and bakers, there are plenty to go around.

Homosexuals have no reason to continue to be combative. Those that are, are after more than good order or some greater good. They’re after a ruling authority over human nature.

Buck adds:

By the way, Rand would strongly argue against and would be highly offended by the suggestion that she is a libertarian. She had little more than disdain for them.

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

Buck’s last remark is off the topic, but deserves a response.  While it is true that Ayn Rand dismissed libertarianism, with her usual Czarist hauteur, and called her own doctrine by the name of objectivism, a point by point comparison of libertarianism and objectivism will find that the two circles of the Venn diagram overlap by about ninety-five per cent.

Buck writes:

I’m sure Dr. Bertonneau is right.

Ayn Rand claims that the (Godless) moral purpose of life is a man’s own happiness, with achievement and reason as his only absolutes. Libertarians cite liberty, (Godless) free will, and property rights as absolutes. They both reject the intiation of the use of force. Both are nihilist.

My point was that the uncompromisingly self-referentially superior Ayn Rand resented and disliked libertarians for “stealing” her ideas without giving her the credit, because they had so much in common.

I was responding to Laura’s comment that Ayn Rand was a libertarian.

Please follow and like us: