I recently posted some links to left-libertarian takes on the Hobby Lobby decision. Heres one more:
The post gives me a queasy feeling. It is fully of overblown rhetorical tricks that I dislike, but each of them is well aimed at an genuine, even uncontroversial target. I hope the c4ss guys have a nice audience among the Socialist Workers etc. Though they probably should drop “market” from the subtitle.
Why, specifically, should we drop “market” form the title? When and how has C4SS ever deviated from market principles?
🙂 To impress the Socialist Workers of course! More seriously I am impressed with what I read from your corner of anarchism, but thats because I’m a small-government right-winger. I can well imagine that leftists both extreme and mainstream will dismiss you as corporate shills (which you aren’t) or tea party ideologues (which you are, and I mean that in a nice way).
If being liked were more important than telling the truth, you should drop “market” from the title, and then maybe people would not notice your underlying principles. I’m not talking about reality here, just marketing.
I’m not sure it is necessarily meant to impress Socialist Workers, so much as point out what a bunch of flaming hypocrites they are. On this subject, the left, by supporting employer-based health insurance, is essentially pro-corporatism.
Of course, no one who considers themselves a Socialist Worker supports employer-based health insurance, but hey, gotta have those straw men.
But I’m sure they still think it’s horrible that Hobby Lobby gets to pick what goes in their health plan, anyway.
It’s their employee’s health plan.
The Greens are free to control their own health plans and refrain from using birth control if they so desire.
I was actually thinking of the Socialist Workers Party. That wasn’t a good term, because they are a particular group of people who infest university campuses in Australia. There’ no employer-based health care down under, we have a completely different (and superior) scheme of distortions and subsidies.
I am pretty sure that almost any real dispute in politics today could not exist in a minimalist state. Consequently, pointing this out does not add very much to forming a view about the actual issue.