Wouldn’t you know it? What a timely blog post by William Norman Grigg:
A slave is somebody compelled to provide service to another. Elane Huguenin, a wedding photographer from New Mexico, was arraigned before that state’s “human rights” soviet for politely declining to provide her services to a lesbian couple planning a “commitment ceremony” (the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage).
In the certain conflicts that will arise between the non-aggression principle and the I-love-everybody principle of thick libertarians, which principle would be superior?
When your thick humanitarian dreams butt up against my thin property reality, which side do you say is triumphant? On what principle will this be decided?
One or the other must be chosen:
1) Are my property rights and my racist/sexist/whatever views to be protected?
2) Are my property rights and my racist/sexist/whatever views to be rejected?
Choose, and explain why. Use the above example provided by Mr. Grigg as a real-life case-study. Explain how poor Ms. Huguenin’s fate would be decided in your world. Ensure your explanation is consistent with the non-aggression principle. Else this entire subject is exposed as nonsensical.
Too hard? Don’t believe the NAP should be taken so strictly? Fine with me; just don’t call your thick dreams any form of libertarianism.