Bait and Switch

So a bar in Seattle kicked out a group of Republicans (who may or may not have been provocateurs), and this started a debate on the merits of ideologically-based discrimination, as opposed to other sorts.

When defenders of the "Free Market" spoke up, the following was offered: "Every time the 'free market' approach is argued I have to point out that we have existing proofs in this country within the last century that it does not work." This triggered two sequential responses, one from a self-described Libertarian and one from a self-described Anarchist.

The Libertarian offered that, essentially, that discrimination against Black Americans was not a side-effect of the functioning of the free market, but of its subversion. He said of the Jim Crow South: "The businesses were told by the government that they not only could oppress, but should oppress, [Black Americans]."

The Anarchist, on the other hand, basically said that remedy of government intervention is worse than the disease: "It may 'work,' sort of, while you're able to lock up your opponents fast enough, but (a) that is the wrong thing to do, it just is, and (b) violence, including politically motivated violence, destabilizes society pretty rapidly […]"

This is what I mean when I use the term "Institutional 'hypocrisy'," and it illustrates one of the main problems with many political arguments; namely, that people can support the same policy for completely different reasons. And those differing reasons give the uninitiated pause.

To the degree that people don't (can't or won't is tangential) understand the differing points of view that support the free market, the differing arguments of the Libertarian and the Anarchist seem like a bait-and-switch: The Free Market is touted as a solution to systemic discrimination, but its supporters know that it actually offers no remedies, and in fact, proscribes them in the name of "freedom."

Libertarian: Government intervention caused discrimination, so non-intervention will give non-discrimination. (The {perceived} bait.)
Anarchist: Government intervention itself is evil, so we shouldn't be doing it regardless, even if non-intervention would directly bring about discrimination. (The {perceived} switch.)

The difference between the Libertarian and the Anarchist, being invisible or unknown to a supporter of government regulation and/or intervention, feels like two people working in concert to deceive or have it both ways, since they understand (incorrectly) that Conservatives hold to a single monolithic belief set. In a culture in which the presumption of good intent is considered to be foolish, the assumption often is that the Anarchist's belief that government intervention is the wrong thing to do is motivated by the knowledge that it would prevent discrimination.

This is not meant to be a knock on their separate arguments, but rather an illustration of how political discourse is complicated when you have multiple people arguing for the same things. Since people can support policies for their own reasons, the differences between those reasons often strikes people as intentionally disingenuous, rather than simply uncoordinated.