My post was a bit aggressive, but libertarian discussions should not default to blaming easy targets. If you want to discuss entitled, unreasonable hordes causing problems, mass migration is an infinitely bigger issue. Otherwise, it's just larping.
I think he’s talking to a phenomenon of argumentative customers, who feel entitled to xy&z, and are willing to make a scene to get it. Nothing about race, I’ve seen plenty of videos labeling non whites as Karen’s.
Libertarian arguments would say that it’s up to the business to how it would react to any people. Libertarian arguments essentially have both parties unregulated in their ability to conduct business. If the business owner doesn’t want to deal with a customer, and they don’t feel, for whatever reason they want to continue, they could kick that person right out, barring any contractual agreements which would be case by case.
As an aside, is it not the case that libertarianism doesn’t defend particular groups? If business didn’t want a particular ethnic and or gender group shopping there, in a libertarian system, that’s fair game. They’d lose business, other business owners could take up the uncatered market. The market sorts it out. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s my understanding of the philosophy.
Every single definition is racial and highly offensive towards white women. I'm not sure what your experience with this term is?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=karen+definition&t=brave&ia=web
My post was a bit aggressive, but libertarian discussions should not default to blaming easy targets. If you want to discuss entitled, unreasonable hordes causing problems, mass migration is an infinitely bigger issue. Otherwise, it's just larping.
I think he’s talking to a phenomenon of argumentative customers, who feel entitled to xy&z, and are willing to make a scene to get it. Nothing about race, I’ve seen plenty of videos labeling non whites as Karen’s.
Libertarian arguments would say that it’s up to the business to how it would react to any people. Libertarian arguments essentially have both parties unregulated in their ability to conduct business. If the business owner doesn’t want to deal with a customer, and they don’t feel, for whatever reason they want to continue, they could kick that person right out, barring any contractual agreements which would be case by case.
As an aside, is it not the case that libertarianism doesn’t defend particular groups? If business didn’t want a particular ethnic and or gender group shopping there, in a libertarian system, that’s fair game. They’d lose business, other business owners could take up the uncatered market. The market sorts it out. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s my understanding of the philosophy.
"libertarian discussions"? What forum are you on?