Daily Archives: April 3, 2015

Silk Roadthe darknet site that blended techno-libertarianism, unexpected pathos, drugs, and that sweet elixir of larceny Bitcoin into what has already been one of recent historys most entertaining legal proceedingsis not done with us yet! Like all Silk Road related news, the charges against DEA agent Carl Force and former Secret Service agent Shaun Bridges are incredibly implausible and circuitous, but Sarah Jeong does as good a job explaining them as anyone could hope for. Keywords include, but are not limited to: murder for hire (simulated), intimidation (failed), theft (flagrant), and LinkedIn contact request (regrettable). Lauren Smiley has a step by step guide in Matter for Feds interested in catching the Bitcoin-laundering wave, and Kashmir Hill collected 5 of Forces wackiest side-projects for Fusion.

Facebook is in trouble again for algorithmically dredging up painful memories. Who could have predicted this?

In Pacific Standard, Susie Cagle makes a case that the VC funding system does more harm than good. If youre on the fence about that, please do see this Twitter thread where prominent venture capitalist Harry Potter, from the blue-chip Silicon Valley firm of Egg & Rapgenius, "argues with Twitter user "fart" about the definition of electricity."

April Fools is stupid, but its also the day Carnegie Mellons Association for Computational Heresy holds SIGBOVIK, which is one of those nerd events where there are so many layers of in-joke that you cant exactly tell how much (if any) of it is real, or what "real" might mean in this context, but the Proceedings, at least, are very funny. Notably, Tom Murphy made a portmanteau of every English word, which he calls a "portmantout." Just watch the video, its good.

I enjoyed this Colson Whitehead tab about our narcissistic culture because I love reading about myself. You do you, Cols! Alana Massey is right: "Chill" is stupid. The police must be huge Chris Rock fans! Across the land, the question rings out: Can a gay wedding even have pizza? If you dont already know what that post is about, trust me, youll be happier staying that way. And finally: read this boring tab.

Its intern Averys birthday! Today she turns 27! At 27 I was a married home owner and one year away from the birth of my first child, but being a newsletter intern is great too! Happy Birthday Avery!

Today is my twenty-seventh birthday (please, hold your applause). Two decades ago, on this date, I woke up and found a childs snooker table set up for me in our dining room. Not something Id asked for, but still one of the best gifts Ive ever received.

The popularity of snooker is a weird part of British culture. It hardly seems a thrilling spectator sport, but for weeks at a time in the winter you can switch to BBC2 and watch hours of snooker in the eveningtime slot after time slot of the same old static shot. We even had a bizarre snooker-based game show, Big Break, which ran for ten years.

My snooker table got a lot of use at first, but then I returned to the books one could always find me in as a child. I was not destined to be a Ronnie OSullivan, who is profiled in the New Yorker this week. Its a terrific featurea classic story of a shining talent dogged by vice and familial sin.

I remember looking at my snooker table in the garden with the trash, warped and broken-down by rain. Happy birthday.

Read more from the original source:
Today in Tabs: Facebook Presents Your Year in Tragedy

With the recent and continuing hulabaloo over conflicts between antidiscrimination laws and freedom of religion, the charge inevitably arises that anyone who is opposed to, or even skeptical of, antidiscrimination laws that apply to private partieswhich means most people who identify themselves as libertariansis effectively not pro-liberty, but pro-discrimination. I therefore thought it was a good time to reprint my rebuttal of that argument from Cato Unbound, published in 2010, below.

The most serious charge has been that libertarian skepticism of antidiscrimination laws that apply to private entities reflects, at best, insensitivity to race discrimination. One blogger, reflecting a significant swath of progressive sentiment, argued that no matter how committed to racial egalitarianism any individual libertarian claims to be, Libertarianism is a racist philosophy. Libertarians are racists.

This is a rather odd criticism. For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons, libertarians are presumptively strongly opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. It naturally follows that libertarians presumptively oppose restrictions on private sector discrimination. Its hardly an indication of racial animus, or even insensitivity, for libertarians to enunciate theexact same positionon antidiscrimination laws that they take in all other contexts.

The progressive libel of libertarians as racial troglodytes for their consistent defense of private-sector autonomy is ironic, given that similar illogic has so frequently been used against modern liberals. When liberals defended Communists free speech and employment rights in the 1950s, their critics accused them of being Communist sympathizers, if not outright Communists. More recently, progressives have been accused of being American-hating jihadist sympathizers when they stood up for the rights of terrorism suspects. Critics have even charged civil libertarians with abetting racism for opposing hate speech laws.

The hate speech example is particularly telling. Some progressives argue that if libertarians were more sensitive to the concerns of minorities, they would sacrifice their anti-statist principles to the goddess of antidiscrimination. If so, progressives should similarly sacrifice their support for freedom of speech.

Confronted with the hate speech analogy, progressives will typically reply that supporting freedom of speech is completely different from supporting the right to engage in discriminatory action. After all, speech is just speechsticks and stones, and whatnotwhile discriminatory actions cause real distress to the victims. And besides, they argue, the marketplace of ideas can be trusted to ensure that egalitarian views will emerge victorious.

This argument does not stand up to close scrutiny. Hate speech can directly harm members of minority by causing psychological distress or inciting violence. And indirect harms from hate speech can be catastrophic if advocates of racist views are able to win control of the government. While minorities can generally find productive economic niches in even highly prejudiced but market-oriented societies, there is no safe haven for minorities if racist ideas dominate politics and lead to harsh discriminatory legislation.

Also, a free economic market protects minorities from discrimination to some degree because businesspeople have an economic incentive to hire the most productive workers and to obtain the most customers. By contrast, individual voters and political activists have no corresponding incentive to overlook or overcome their personal prejudices. Concern for the financial bottom line mitigates the temptation of economic entrepreneurs to discriminate; concern for the electoral bottom line, meanwhile, often leads politicians to stir up resentment against minorities.

As suggested above, supporters of antidiscrimination laws typically focus on laws banning racial discrimination. They do so because opposition to race discrimination has great historical and emotional resonance in a nation that had institutionalized racial oppression, including chattel slavery, for hundreds of years. However, federal antidiscrimination laws also apply to discrimination based on religion, sex, age, disability (including ones status as a recovering drug or alcohol addict), pregnancy, marital status, veteran status, and even military recruiters. State and local antidiscrimination laws cover everything from sexual orientation to political ideology to weight to appearance to membership in a motorcycle gang.

The proliferation of antidiscrimination laws explains why libertarians are loath to concede the principle that the government may ban private sector discrimination. There is no natural limit to the scope of antidiscrimination laws, because the concept of antidiscrimination is almost infinitely malleable. Almost any economic behavior, and much other behavior, can be defined as discrimination. Is a school admitting students based on SAT scores? That is discrimination against individuals (or groups) who dont do well on standardized tests! Is a store charging more for an item than some people can afford? That is discrimination against the poor! Is an employer hiring only the best qualified candidates? That is discrimination against everyone else!

Go here to read the rest:
Volokh Conspiracy: Explaining the libertarian position on antidiscrimination laws