Libertarians have a very easy time, which progressives do not, distinguishing legal restriction on speech and social restriction on speech. As a libertarian/conservative living on the Westside of Los Angeles, my social space consists of many people who disagree with my views and, in typical liberal fashion, often get quite emotionally distraught when they discover someone does not agree with their prejudices. Therefore, to successfully live where I live, I am quite skilled at interacting with these people, which often requires me to be silent when people say truly asinine things. In other words, I recognize that there are very real negative social and economic consequences if I exercise my free speech rights. Does this bother me? Not one bit. Exit over voice and all of that. And I see absolutely no real difference between an employee who has to stand there and listen to an employer spout off about politics. As long as I can't get arrested, even if I can get fired, f! or exercising free speech, and we have secret ballots, that is enough for me.
David Shemano -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 2:59 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] the Master speaks David, This post perfectly reveals the abyss at the heart of libertarianism. You picture the boss and the employees engaging each other as citizens. I picture the employees being VERY careful about expressing their views in this situation. In other words, the employees don't have free speech and thus your whole world view is clearly nonsense. Gene On Oct 19, 2012, at 2:24 PM, David Shemano wrote: > Why would you be interested in what libertarians think about this issue? > Libertarians are free speech absolutists, so there is no issue here for > libertarians. On the other hand, I am SHOCKED liberals and progressives have > an issue with employers talking politics with their employees. I thought > liberals and progressives love the "public square" and people leaving their > atomized shells to engage in political issues. What could be better than > employers and employees standing around the watercooler engaging each other > as citizens concerned about current events? > > David Shemano > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of raghu > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:04 AM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] the Master speaks > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks to Citizens United, employers can legally tell their employees >> who they think they should vote for. Mitt Romney wants small business >> owners to do just that this November. >> >> [...] >> >> The call, recorded on June 6, was first published yesterday evening >> by In These Times, a liberal magazine based in Chicago, and later >> picked up by ThinkProgress and the Huffington Post, among others. >> While the practice of an employer offering voting advice to an >> employee appears to be perfectly legal (as Romney points out), it's >> nonetheless a somewhat controversial practice that never goes over >> well with liberals who see lines like "in the best interest of ... >> their job" as akin to "vote for my guy or else." > > > > I'd be very interested in hearing what libertarians think about this. > -raghu. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
