Change that quote! I didn’t say that, it was someone else!
I have a moral problem with it, sure. But I don’t think it should prevented by force (i.e., by law or regulation).
Haha, I was not saying you said the statement that was wrong. I was agreeing and expanding on your “muffin example”. I agree with you 100%
As the owner of the property I have the right to allow or not allow whoever I want onto my property. If I don’t want people speaking Spanish in my business I could say “No Spanish! Speak English or get out!” If I don’t want blacks or Mexicans or Jews or gays or people who wear Nike shoes in my store that is my right as the owner of the property just as it is your right not to shop at my store if you disagree with my policies. And you also have the right to organize a boycott of my shop, so long as you do not infringe on my property rights.
The only problem I see is that it could become common practice…prevalent in the culture.
It is fine for everyone to say “Well, I wouldn’t give them my business.” That’s great if it’s one muffin shop in an entire city. But what happens if it’s not just one muffin shop, but all the bus companies? Or if it’s the garbage company that refuses to pickup trash from a home owned by an asian. Or if it’s the two hospitals in a area, and the black family of an injured 6-year-old has to rush their bleeding son 60 miles to a hospital that allows blacks?
I think comparing guns and race is not the same thing. A store posting a sign that says “no guns allowed” is not the same thing as “no blacks allowed”. In the gun case you can simply leave your weapon at home (or in the car) and go get that muffin. You can’t just shed your race at will.
Also, there is the issue of preventing possible injury to another’s property. The owner of a store might want to prevent even the slight chance of accidental injury to patrons that someone’s concealed (or unconcealed) sidearm might cause. There is no rational or logical reason why someone would want to prevent women from entering their store…there is absolutely no chance for accidental injury.
Buses are usually government-run, so let’s use a different example: let’s say that every electronics store in town started decided to ban non-whites. The incentive for remaining electronics stores to allow non-whites would become huge! There would be an untapped market for them! The incentive to open up new stores would be large, as well.
What you are saying, Jonas, is, “I want everyone to be able do business with you, so I’ll hold a gun to your head and make you do what I want”. Is that fair?
Yeah, but my name was in the quote box. Someone skimming the thread might get the wrong impression! Haha
“I want everyone to be able do business with you, so I’ll hold a gun to your head and make you do what I want”. Is that fair?
No, but I think we have to make the distinction between property types. Should a government entity, regardless of type, force a person to allow blacks into their home? No. Should the government force a group of people, who have formed a private club centered around the exploration of local hiking trails, to allow whites to join? No. I sorta MIGHT even go so far as to say a government shouldn’t force a business to hire people it doesn’t want to.
But I kinda reach a line when it comes to the purchase/use of the business’ products/services. At that point the whole property right issue starts to blur to me.
You might go as far as to allow me to hire a person of my choice?
Don’t I have the right to buy labor from whomever I want? What gives you the right to hold a gun to my head and force me to hire a particular person? Isn’t it my money? Would you be ok if I forced you to buy electronics from certain people?
What does “ownership” mean if it’s really you that controls everything?
Why does it blur? Do the owners of the store have an obligation to sell, at all?
If so, then they do not own the business. But on the other hand, if they have the right to close shop and not to sell to anyone, you can’t get around the subordinate right for them not to sell to certain people.
And as was previously pointed out, if every store decides to sell only to one particular group of people, the demand for service to those outside that group would skyrocket. Economic profit appears, and I’d give it a week before some non-bigot entrepreneur starts to absorb it. At that time the opportunity cost of excluding certain people becomes persuasive, if not prohibitive!
The only way that could be prevented is if there is an artificial barrier to entry that prohibits a business from serving the out-groups. That doesn’t happen in a free market. It takes a state to pull that off.
“What gives you the right to hold a gun to my head and force me to hire a particular person?”
It is not forcing you to hire a particular person. It is only forcing you not to use certain traits when REFUSING to hire a particular person. You don’t want to hire that asian woman because she only has 1 year of experience and the white man also up for the job has 5 years? Go ahead. But refusing to hire the same white man just because he is a white man…or is a member of the NRA…is what I have a problem with.
So in other words, you will force me to hire a particular person I don’t want to hire?
Let’s say I don’t want to hire John McCain because he’s white. You hold a loaded gun to my mouth and say, “Nope, can’t do that, you have to hire him”. Which one of us is acting out of line?
But you are missing the core of the issue. What gives you the right? If people own their businesses, then they own their businesses. If you or anyone else has the right to decide what they may and may not do with their businesses (beyond using it for coercion or fraud), then they do not own their businesses. Do people have the right to control the fruits of their labor; to voluntarily associate with each other in trade? Or do they not have that right? Pick one.
If so, then they do not own the business. But on the other hand, if they have the right to close shop and not to sell to anyone, you can’t get around the subordinate right for them not to sell to certain people.
That doesn’t make sense. Of course they have the right to make widgets and not sell them. But that doesn’t give them the right to sell to only certain subgroups. You either sell to nobody, or everybody.
And as was previously pointed out, if every store decides to sell only to one particular group of people, the demand for service to those outside that group would skyrocket. Economic profit appears, and I’d give it a week before some non-bigot entrepreneur starts to absorb it. At that time the opportunity cost of excluding certain people becomes persuasive, if not prohibitive!
I completely agree with this. Profit in almost all cases trumps morality. There will be some people, whose intolerance is so strong and deeply ingrained, who would never do this regardless of the incentive. But I believe that is a small section of the population.
The only way that could be prevented is if there is an artificial barrier to entry that prohibits a business from serving the out-groups. That doesn’t happen in a free market. It takes a state to pull that off.
I completely disagree with this. There are many ways other business could create artificial barriers to entry. It doesn’t take the state to do that…all it takes is a decent-sized group of like-minded powerful people. There are many things people can do to harass businesses that serve muffins to “those non-whites”. Just do some casual research on the civil rights movement. There were actually lots of people who thought segregation was wrong, but they went along with it out of fear of reprisal.
Jonas, what you are doing is injecting your moral beliefs with legal beliefs and confusing them. Morally, you may be correct. You shouldn’t deny someone access to something just because they are a different race, religion, sex or orientation but that does not make it illegal. You yourself have disproven your arguement when you stated:
If, according to you, the government shouldn’t be allowed to force someone to do something against their will, including excluding someone on the basis of race, then what gives you or anyone else the authority or the right to do so? As for “distinctions between property types” that is wholly absured as there is NO distinction between property types. There is only one type of property: private property. And as the owner of my private property I have the right to deny someone access to it at any time I wish.
Let’s use the electronics store example. I own an electronics store. I own the building, I own the products in the store, I own all of the fixtures, etc. Everything in that store rightfully belongs to me until somone makes an exchange with me and I transfer ownership to them. However, I am a racist pig that hates Mexicans so I post a sign that reads “No Mexicans Allowed.” It is not my home but it is my store. My home is private property and my store is private property. I allow certain private individuals to come into my store and shop there. However, there is one type of person I do not like, Mexicans. And since I own MY private property I can exclude whoever I wish for any reason. You might assume there is a distrinction because in todays modern world we call such places “public” because the “public” goes there. Understand that there is no such thing as “public people.” All people are private persons and all businesses are private business that allow private persons to enter.
My exclusion of Mexicans does not violate their rights as they have no right to shop in my store without my permission. They can always go to another store that does serve Mexicans but they can’t come here. For them to come onto my property without my permission is to violate my property rights making them tresspassers and subject to whatever force is necessary to remove them from my property. Economically this would be a bad decision for me since I live in Texas and there are lots of Mexicans in Texas, quickly becoming the majority here.
If mine was the only electronics store in town and I excluded Mexicans then some enterprising individual will recognize that in this town 40% of the people are Mexicans. That’s a huge number of people that can be serviced but isn’t. Not to mention the unknown number of non-Mexicans who are repulsed by my refusal to serve Mexicans. He will open up a competing business that will quickly eat into my profits and drive me out of business.
What you have to understand is that morally you are correct. We shouldn’t exlude someone on the basis of race or whatever. But legally I have the right to refuse service to anyone I wish since it is my property we are dealing with. There is no distinction between a home and a business. Both are private property and to violate either one is to violate my most basic right – the right to own property and decide how I will use it.
A right is a legally enforceable moral claim to freedom of action, i.e., from the threat or use of initiatory physical force. What you are advocating amounts to rights violations. I take it you aren’t a natural rights libertarian? What are you then? A utilitarian? Arguably not even a libertarian at all if you’re advocating using force to interfere with peaceful, non-violent business practices. There are other ways to deal with morally repugnant business practices that are compatible with libertarianism, such as boycotts.
If people own their businesses, then they own their businesses. If you or anyone else has the right to decide what they may and may not do with their businesses (beyond using it for coercion or fraud), then they do not own their businesses.
But you are saying yourself that there are limits to what a person can do with their business. You are saying a person, who owns a business, cannot use that business for coercion or fraud. Why not? If I own my business, then I own it and can use it for whatever purpose I want.
But the fact is, I can’t. And if you are going to put restrictions on how a person uses their business, then adding one more restriction against discrimination isn’t that horrid.
Yes, of course you can use it for whatever purpose you want. Everyone has the right to the full use and enjoyment of their property, and that includes exclusion. But that principle has a built-in restriction: since everyone has the right to full control of their own property, it follows that nobody has the right to any control over anyone else’s property.
Yes, it is actually very horrid. Laws against aggression and fraud are the only laws that preserve the property ethic, because they uphold the idea that everyone owns (controls; has the right to the use of) their property, and nobody owns (controls; has the right to the use of) anybody else’s property. Anything else negates that very principle from which property rights are derived.
Read this, perhaps it will help clear things up: Are There Limits to Liberty?
Haha nice catch… I will try to change it. 
kingmonkey, everything you said makes a lot of sense. I completely understand the idea of private property, and that it is sacrosanct, and that the idea of anyone forcing me to use my private property in a way I don’t like should be prevented.
I still think a distinction has to be made between different types of property. I still think we need to note a difference between a house and a Starbucks…a condo and a hospital…a driveway and a major highway.
I will have to think about this a lot.
gplauche, I don’t consider myself anything…I’m still trying to sort out all my beliefs and ideas.