Since reading Brian Doherty‘s history of libertarian thought in the U.S., I’ve gone on a libertarian reading kick. From page 114 of Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom:
The counterpart to fair employment in the area where these principles have perhaps been worked out more than any other, namely, the area of speech, is "fair speech" rather than free speech. In this respect the position of the American Civil Liberties Union seems utterly contradictory. It favors both free speech and fair employment laws. One way to state the justification for free speech is taht we do not believe that it is desirable that momentary majorities decide what at any moment shall be regarded as appropriate speech. We want a free market in ideas, so that ideas get a chance to win majority or near-unanimous acceptance, even if initially held only be a few. Precisely the same considerations apply to employment or more generally to the market for goods and services. Is it any more desirable that momentary majorities decide what characteristics are relevant to employment than what speech is appropriate? Indeed, can a free market in ideas long be maintained if a free market in goods and services is destroyed? The ACLU will fight to the death to protect the right of a racist to preach on a street corner the doctrine of racial segregation. But it will favor putting him in jail if he acts on his principles by refusing to hire a Negro for a particular job.
I email Brian Doherty: "Do you ever think about taiwan? Without US support, it would fall to the commies… Israel would not exist either…" He replies: "Sometimes I think about Taiwan, Luke, and I cry. "It is not the mission of the U.S. government to save the world, nor can it succeed in doing so."
