I treat all preferences as given and as legitimate as any other. So the preference to not engage in SM is like the preference not to be in a relationship with an SM enthusiast (if we can mold one preference, why not the other?) is like the preference not to hire an SM enthusiast. It’s not my place to judge any of them. I think the SM example is particularly funny in that someone is agreeing to be subjected to pain, and often domination. Some varieties of “thick” libertarians or cultural liberals would have to oppose the practice and encourage submissives to be more assertive and dominants to get their kicks in a more acceptable manner!

I mentioned that I am completely on the pluralist end of Jacob Levy’s spectrum, but my goal isn’t simply “a pluralist [or diverse] society”. I used the example of small, subsidized languages at Wilkinson’s. I want freedom for Welsh enthusiasts to be able to speak Welsh together and do whatever it is Welsh enthusiasts do, but I am not inclined to encourage English speakers to learn Welsh so that Welsh enthusiasts have a less constraining culture. In an economic sense I think it is inefficient for good workers not to be hired because their bosses don’t approve of non-work-related matters and so I’m glad if other businesses outcompete them in grabbing such talent, but that’s just letting the market take its course. I don’t try to second-guess it and say what the outcome ought to be. I personally like more economic efficiency, but I have no problem with people pursuing other ends voluntarily, as in a kibbutz. Efficiency lowers costs and increases many persons “positive liberty”, but libertarianism isn’t about promoting efficiency, we just happen to think that would be a result. Starting a new innovative business may increase efficiency, but it’s a distinct matter from libertarianism.

Interesting question. I am not opposed to the government enforcing contracts, so there should be no reason to oppose culture enforcing contracts. Though, I will admit that it seems off putting which tells me that my intuition on this issue is not well honed.

On Will’s blog you asked, if firing someone for engaging in S&M is an infringement then is refusing to be in a relationship with for the same reason infringement.

The difference is of course that presumably S&M play would become a part of the relationship and thus effect its character. So, lets alter it and say former S&M practitioner.

In both cases my sense is that libertarians should engage this on a social level and promote acceptance of S&M practitioner. We shouldn’t use the state to force hiring or relationship, but we should use persuasion to encourage people to be open.

If we really want a pluralist society then this seems to be important.

Thought?

Whenever there are threats of ostracism and stigmatization for living a certain lifestyle or making a given set of personal choices, culture is being used as a weapon.
Many libertarians of the anarcho-capitalist variety laud the old “Law Merchant”, which could not physically enforce its edicts but relied on blacklisting by other professionals. I used the example of a dishonest person in Wilkinson’s comment section. Would publicizing such a person’s dishonesty, condemning and shunning them be a sort of weaponized culture that libertarians should be worried about? Or should we applaud it, as Wilkinson did for political correctness?