Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
In the latest Uncommon Knowledge, Dennis Prager (at around the 17 minute mark) begins telling a story to emphasize a point he was making about how Islam does not value liberty. He mentioned the Somali cab drivers at the airport in Minnesota refuse to allow passengers who carry alcohol or have dogs into their cabs.
By contrast, Mr. Prager got a call from a mailman in Colorado who is a fundamentalist Christian who said he, as a mailman, has to deliver pornography, and he is at least opposed, as a Christian, to pornography as Muslim is to alcohol or dogs. But, he delivers the pornography because he believes in freedom.
Forgive me, but am I the only one who noticed problems with this?
First of all, that man delivers pornography because he is paid to do so. It is his job. He is paid a generous salary, very generous benefits and will collect a very generous pension on my dime. So, while he may believe in freedom, he delivers it because he is paid.
Second, as far as I am able to tell (with limited research), those Minnesota Somali cab drivers, unlike the sanctimonious mailman, are not federal employees suckling on the public teat. More likely they are independent operators or they work for a cab company. If they are independent operators, who own or lease their cabs, its their business if they refuse, because of their belief system, to serve some customers.
This is a measure of values. Those cab drivers believe enough in Islam to stand on their principles, refuse money and risk the economic consequences. This mailman may claim to have an objection to pornography, but obviously not enough to stand on principle and refuse that government pay check, those generous government benefits, or that pension.
That is what freedom is. The freedom to associate or not associate with whom you choose based on your own personal values system. Those taxi drivers value Islam, the mailman values his government pension. To each his own, but it doesn't prove Islam is anti-freedom.
Addendum: If I've misunderstood, Dennis is invited to clarify things.
- Comment (278)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (12)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
(cont'd)There were arguments on both sides of that controversy about "religious freedom" and other irrelavencies, but in the end, the CULTURE won.All cultures have a right to defend themselves. Just because we believe in property, or freedom, we do not have to allow enemies to use those concepts to defeat us.If we as a culture decide that the Somalis are exercising property rights within our cultural definition, then they should be allowed to do that. If we do NOT, then we have a right to say no.
Apr '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Fred Cole
......
And I could give a [expletive] which side CAIR is on. You use that as some sort of guilt by association. I'm on the side of human rights, the most basic is property rights, if CAIR happens to be on my side in this limited instance, then good for them, but its not a mark against me. · 18 hours ago
Kevin, do you recognize the truth of Fred's accusation here? Do you furthermore recognize that even you agree with CAIR on some issues? I don't know your views well enough to tell what those issues are, but I imagine that persuading Muslims that it's wrong to vandalize churches seems like a good idea to you, or maybe the importance of 2 parent families is more your thing.
Apr '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Fred, first, thank you for this post; we don't have enough defenses of Islamic religious freedom amongst conservatives. This is the Fortnight For Freedom, and we should be celebrating our First Freedom, which necessarily includes, to my mind, celebrating that freedom in others with whom we have disagreements.
Set against, that, I think that you've committed the classic libertarian fallacy. You say that Muslims should be free to refuse service and when others say that they have a government created monopoly, you say that that shouldn't be the case.
Given that it is the case, though, do you agree that this changes things? For the free market answer of "blind people should go elsewhere and take their business with them", an alternative business must be allowed to operate. Without competitors, "go to the competition" becomes a "hope you like walking" solution, which is obviously problematic for some blind people with luggage in pedestrian unfriendly airports.
Furthermore, in terms of specifically (cramped) airport taxi regulation, perhaps the barriers to competitors entering the market are defensible even in libertarian terms; traffic regulations are often cited as examples of good libertarian legislation.
Apr '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Fred Cole
You have it exactly backwards. You're imposing your will on them. You're the one who wants to violate their rights, their property rights.
And a society that cannot or will not protect private propertywill not survive. Destroying private property rights is cultural suicide.
I don't think it is as dramatic as what you state Fred. I think for most of history property rights have been rather poorly defended (by modern standards) and societies have existed just fine. We certainly know that a society forcing cultural and behavioral conformity tend to do ok, maybe even better in some ways.
The US has always been a very eclectic place with a high degree of heterogeneity. Thus for smooth operation we have always needed more flexibility and freedom to avoid conflict between groups. But if your society is already highly homogeneous maintaining it that way doesn't strike me as detrimental.
Frankly I think we should just convince Muslims to give up on their non-alcoholism. All my Jewish friends enjoy pork, I think Muslims would enjoy booze too.
Aug '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Yes, it's possible that airports may be better off with restrictive traffic regulations. What had me narked is the ease with which many of us simply assumed airports would be better off with such regulations, as if the assumption did not need to be tested, and as if the burden of proof should be on those wary of regulation rather than those in favor of regulation.
Many people pick folks up at the airport in their own family cars because they know that taxi service is expensive and lousy. I wonder what alternatives haven't been coming into being because of restrictive regulation.
Perhaps in this age of lightning-fast communication, there'd be more professional shuttle and ride-board services. By fitting more people into each car or van, and by specializing in being more adaptable to delayed flights, etc, than the average layperson is, maybe these services would cause fewer cars to hang around airport driveways taking up precious space.
Nov '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
James Of England:
Set against, that, I think that you've committed the classic libertarian fallacy. You say that Muslims should be free to refuse service and when others say that they have a government created monopoly, you say that that shouldn't be the case.
This is the problem with regulations, they created unintended consequences. Not knowing the specific details of the airport Dennis was talking about in the first place, I cannot know the specific details of the taxi system, its various regulations, and the airport involved and if it has established a monopoly on taxi service.
I just don't know all the details.
My initial comments were based on what limited information I did have and the generalities involved. If the airport is government owned and has granted a monopoly to one taxi company whose employees or contractees have chosen to engage in this action, then that's a different set of issues.
Nov '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
(Cont'd)
If they government entity owning the airport puts restrictions on the taxis that violate their rights, there are different constitutional issues involved, something akin to a school barring a student from wearing a t-shirt expressing a particular message. But not knowing anything of the specific details, I made general comments, which were more than enough to generate one hell of a conversation here.
Addendum:
Anyone who knows specific details is welcome to post links so we can all ready up on it!
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 1:33amNov '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
James Of England:
Given that it is the case, though, do you agree that this changes things? For the free market answer of "blind people should go elsewhere and take their business with them", an alternative business must be allowed to operate. Without competitors, "go to the competition" becomes a "hope you like walking" solution, which is obviously problematic for some blind people with luggage in pedestrian unfriendly airports.
If it is the situation that a government agency has established a monopoly like that, then the problem is the government agency and its monopoly. The airport should rightly be sold off to a private entity. At which point it could set reasonable non-discriminatory demands of its vendors, which I'd have no problem with.
But be clear, it's not the men exercising their property rights and their freedom of speech, religion and association that created the problem, it is that the airport is a public entity and not a private one.
Sep '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Isn't this the point one or another (or perhaps both) of the Pauls have made regarding the civil rights legislation of the 1960s? That it's all well and good to extend civil rights mandates throughout government, but that it should stop at the threshold of the private sector?
If we are to give line-drawing a pass to line-drawing Somali cab drivers in the interest of private property rights, should we not extend similar consideration to owners of diners or motels or apartment buildings who are willing to injure their bottom lines rather than compromise their fevered principles?
I wouldn't eat/stay/live at any of those exclusionary places, even if I was a favored client, and you can bet I'd seek the non-Somali cabbie, but, still, freedom is as freedom does.
Aug '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Fred, it's not a matter of guilt by association. You may not care what CAIR has to say. But libertarians like you will be very useful to Islamists in this country.
They would be quite happy to hear you say that the "property rights" of Muslim cabbies to refuse Jews and blind folks with seeing-eye dogs trump the right of those people to get a ride like anyone else. But denying such people access to important airport transportation is profoundly un-American. I believe the customer's right trumps the cabbie's right. In fact, I don't even think it's a close call. And I'm quite confident the vast majority of Americans feel the same way.
All the cabbies are being asked to do is their job. If they're not comfortable with it, then maybe they should find another job. As I said before, other religious minorities have found a way to get by without imposing their religious beliefs on others. The Amish don't work in high-tech industries; orthodox Jews don't operate machinery on Saturdays. They bear the burdens of their beliefs. The Muslims can, too.
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 7:55amApr '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Fred Cole
James Of England:
Given that it is the case, though, do you agree that this changes things?
If it is the situation that a government agency has established a monopoly like that, then the problem is the government agency and its monopoly. The airport should rightly be sold off to a private entity. At which point it could set reasonable non-discriminatory demands of its vendors, which I'd have no problem with.
But be clear, it's not the men exercising their property rights and their freedom of speech, religion and association that created the problem, it is that the airport is a public entity and not a private one. · 7 hours ago
I agree that it's not the taxi driver's fault that there's government action that benefits them by removing competition. I also agree that that government action should not be taking place. Do you agree that while that government action is taking place (and there are barriers to entry for taxi drivers almost everywhere, often serious barriers), to the benefit of taxi drivers, that they should, like the mail and other common carriers, carry the traditional burdens of monopolistic provision of services?
Apr '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Yes, it's possible that airports may be better off with restrictive traffic regulations. What had me narked is the ease with which many of us simply assumed airports would be better off with such regulations.....
I agree that the regulation may be terrible; taxi regulation generally is, often exacerbated by awful unions. My point was not that licensing should exist, but that it shouldn't be assumed not to exist, and that it was going too far even to assume that in all instances it shouldn't exist.
Even if Fred's solution of selling all airports to private owners were put in place, the unchanged physical tarmac situation and obvious ways of dealing with that would mean (for some airports) that the same practical result arose; the taxi driver and/ or blind person would be hurt by exclusively by private entities rather than public, but I don't imagine this would be of tremendous comfort to them.
Nov '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
James Of England
Even if Fred's solution of selling all airports to private owners were put in place, the unchanged physical tarmac situation and obvious ways of dealing with that would mean (for some airports) that the same practical result arose; the taxi driver and/ or blind person would be hurt by exclusively by private entities rather than public, but I don't imagine this would be of tremendous comfort to them. · 16 hours ago
Different incentive structure comes with private entities. Customers would complain, the entity would change its business practices immediately.
Sep '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
If a private airport entered into an exclusive contract with one taxi company, and taxis from other companies were not allowed on the private roads on the airport grounds, and if certain cabbies refused service to customers carrying booze, in violation of the terms of the exclusive contract, then we'd be at the same place, with cabbies willing to break the rules out of a totalitarian impulse to impose their religious beliefs on others.
Apr '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Fred Cole
James Of England
Even if Fred's solution of selling all airports to private owners were put in place, the unchanged physical tarmac situation and obvious ways of dealing with that would mean (for some airports) that the same practical result arose; the taxi driver and/ or blind person would be hurt by exclusively by private entities rather than public, but I don't imagine this would be of tremendous comfort to them. · 16 hours ago
Different incentive structure comes with private entities. Customers would complain, the entity would change its business practices immediately. · 14 hours ago
While privatization often solves things, I'm not sure that the incentives would be decisively changed in this case. My sense is that they should do the same as hospitals that do not offer abortions; they should be required to help the refused client avail themselves of alternative services, possibly paying for a portion of that service (Catholic hospitals don't pay for abortions, but they pay for taxis to get to abortions; here the infringement would be less as Muslims don't object to the existence of alcohol or dogs, merely to their proximity.)
Nov '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
If they violated the contract the airport would find another vendor.
Aug '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
I'm glad to see acknowledged by one commenter here (albeit in a comment on a different post) that mores and customs are central to the libertarian worldview: "How many serious libertarian thinkers actually believe in living a life without mores of some kind?... I can't consider a libertarian who's unable to recognize the advantages of having customs a serious libertarian thinker."
Among the mores and customs I deem worth defending are those that prohibit service providers' discriminating, particularly within a restricted market, against customers on the basis of their religion, or what legal products they happen to be carrying, or what service animals they depend upon.
Edited on June 27, 2012 at 8:54pmAug '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Do you assume that regulation is the only way to defend custom?