I’ve always wondered this. Why do I need to be concerned if someone or a group is a racist? I can understand maybe if a family member or friend or an employee was racist, but this whole “we need to eliminate racism” crusade is a wonderful excuse for more state/collectivist action.
I wholeheartedly agree with the poster who said that people respond to incentives, but weather patterns don’t. Property rights can be rather complicated, that’s why even within anarcho-capitalist visions of society there is the enterprise of law. There is enforcement as well. Civil rights would be enforced the same way that property rights would be enforced, whether you are a classical liberal or an anarcho-capitalist. Therefore, simply because one advocates enforcement of laws does not mean that one isn’t a libertarian.
We still need to understand why we even bother respecting other people’s property rights, as we decidedly cannot discriminate against others with repect to their property rights. If it is perfectly fine to descriminate in the use of one’s property rights, then why isn’t it fine to discriminate in the advocacy of property rights? For example, why is it wrong to enslave some other people on the basis for their race? Why must all people own their bodies rather than some? If you should respect all other people as ones who should actively pursue happiness, which is ultimately the answer to these questions, then it is clear that you should not descriminate against them merely on the basis of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Likewise, I believe that “public accommodations” can be defined rather precisely, probably even better than they are defined in the Civl Rights Act, and I would thereby advocate enforcement of civil rights with respect to public accommodations. There is simply no moral basis for arbitrary descrimination when it comes to these public accommodations. With respect to other aspects of social space, I still think that discrimination can be morally wrong as well, but I don’t think that it can be legislated or enforced away except through reputational costs.
Discrimination is not coercion.
Why should all people have property rights, why not just white people? When we descriminate with regard to property rights, that is a more clear instance of coercion.
With regard to civil rights, you don’t think that forcefully removing a peaceful black person from a lunch counter simply because he’s black isn’t coercion?
@edavimail
Denying a black person his property rights is against NAP…
Denying a black person a job based on his race is not against NAP…
As for your second claim… if the owner is racist and wants the black person out of his restaurant, the black person must leave… if he refuses to leave, that is a violation against the owner’s property rights.
A political exchange is coercion no matter what the personal characteristics of the two parties happen to be. There is no necessary connection between (e.g. racial) discrimination and coercion. It is like saying that ice cream should be outlawed simply because some people are willing to steal ice cream but not other goods. There is no necessary connection between ice cream and the propensity for men to steal. Without the coercion, the objection disappears. The same holds for your argument.
And the error in the lunch counter story has already been pointed out.
Overall it seems that you are hugely discriminatory against discrimination. How awkward.
Thanks for your clear post.
I don’t expect you to explain everything, but I want to ask you why you think the NAP should be upheld?
The moral basis of civil rights is the same basis for property rights. Property rights are a necessary but not a sufficient basis for upholding a person’s rights. The basis for the property rights is that we should respect every person as one who should actively seek happiness.
The restaurant owner has no right to exercise his property rights in a way that does not respect another person as one who should actively seek happiness. Therefore, in so far as he applies his property in a public accommodation, he has no moral basis for forcefully removing a peaceful black person from the restaurant simply because the person is black.
Erik
Self-contradiction:
NAP is necessary for rights - no coercion allowed
Restaurant owner cannot exclude people from his restaurant - therefore coercion is necessary
Also, you talk about people who actively seek happiness. Everybody does this; give me a situation in which one aims to act to their own detriment.
What is the moral basis for forcefully removing a peaceful black person from the restaurant simply because the person is black?
If you say NAP, then I admire your consistency, but I must ask, what is the moral basis for NAP?
I don’t expect anyone to answer this question because it is asking a lot of them.
The question ultimately becomes: what is the moral basis for forcefully preventing me from taking all of your money simply because I’m not you? What is the moral basis for forcefully preventing me from breaking your arm simply because I’m not you? That is nothing less than discrimination!!
The moral basis of the NAP is ultimately utilitarian, but that’s another big discussion about which we have already had many threads. It’s also likely someone will argue with me now for saying that it’s utilitarian.
On discrimination, please read: http://mises.org/books/case_discrimination_block.pdf
Why does the accused racist need to justify his decision to refuse trade with the black person? Must we provide a “moral basis” for every thing we do?
edavidmail,
Why do I think NAP should be upheld? Well, I see the NAP as a system that least contradicts itself. All in all, the NAP has no exceptions.
I ask you, why is happiness the ultimate goal for the basis of property rights. The basis for property rights is that every person should respect the NAP… I do not see what happiness has to do with anything.
Of course he does, it is his property. To further the point about happiness: What I consider happiness for me may not be what you consider to be happiness.
he does have a moral basis, and that is the NAP. And what do you mean by ‘public accommodation’?
On a side note: in a economical scope, though, it is not a good decision to turn down a person who is willing to pay for your services. If the owner still wants to turn down his services, then so be it, but there is an opportunity cost there. For example, say that the racist owner only wishes to serve Whites. Well, what a great incentive it is for an entrepreneur to invest in a similar business but instead of providing services to only Whites, the entrepreneur provides services to all who is willing to pay for it.
Isaac,
Thanks again for your reply. I also like the NAP for it’s logical consistency. It was only after exploring the moral basis of NAP that I came upon an argument for civil rights. I now believe that property rights need to be understood within a larger context of morality alongside civil rights. It will take us too far afield to go into a philosopohical discussion of the moral underpinnings of libertarianism, so perhaps I will start another thread expounding my perspective on that.
That might be very nice, as I’m not really sure what you - or anyone else - mean by the “moral basis” of the NAP or property rights. I started writing an explanation of property rights for my last post, but went with the simple question to save myself some time; I’ll let you better explain your thoughts before bringing it up. Basically, I think it’s mistaken to depict ‘property rights’ as if they were designed to pass some moral test, because property and the rules surrounding it evolved alongside our moral tradition.
I do agree, however, that discrimination may be legally prohibited in some instances in some environments, regardless of its fidelity to the NAP/Rothbardian legal code. As I understand it, the English common law has long said that operators of public lodgings have an obligation to serve all customers; though even there, I believe it is largely referring to those businesses granted government charters/monopolies. I’d find it hard to believe that, in our modern world and with our level of wealth, there would be an epidemic of minorities incapable of finding any accommodations whatsoever (because, unless it’s a pervasive problem, making and enforcing a new rule is likely seen by most as a waste of resources).
I took ‘moral basis’ as referring to the question: ‘why should this be?’ or 'why should I do this rather than that?" in this case in relation to the NAP, e.g. “Why should I let you keep the dollar you’re holding rather than take it from you?”, “Why should someone be allowed to exclude someone else from their lunch counter?”
edavismail,
Well the claim that there has to be a larger context of morality alongside the NAP is nothing new, it is a claim held by a lot of ‘left libertarians’. The problem I see there is this: when you add more stuff alongside the NAP, you are more than likely going to contradict the NAP. And you said you like the logical consistency of the NAP but if you also advocate adding on to the axiom, well then you ruin the whole point of the NAP. I look forward in reading your thread detailing your views though…
Why is discrimination illegal for SELLERS of a product or service but not for BUYERS of the very same product or service?
If I’m a white barber, should a black man who clearly needs a trim be allowed to go down the street to a black barber, without being questioned by the government? I think not. He’s probably discriminating against me because of the color of my skin.
If I’m a white restaurant owner, should a black person be allowed to pass up my restaurant in favor of one owned by someone he considers his “brother?” I think not. He and every other citizen (and illegal alien) should be monitored by the federal government to make sure he’s fairly and equitably distributing his dollars among ALL business owners, regardless of race, sex, religion, or presence/absence of offensive tattoos.
We catch only a small fraction of immoral and insidious discrimination when we examine the behavior of sellers while completely ignoring the behavior of the much more numerous buyers.
Is this a serious post or a joke. Because to be frank, this made me laugh because of its absurdity
Don’t you agree that at least 95% of “discrimination” is perpetrated by the buyers of products and services, rather than the sellers?
People do it all the time. They patronise one business instead of another, and the feds give them a pass. Maybe the cashier wears a piercing in her nose, so you don’t buy gas or cigarettes at that place. Maybe your REAL reason is that she’s Asian. We can’t be sure. The problem really needs to be addressed by a federal agency.
I am not sure that your percentile is accurate. nevertheless, I am in the side in favor for individuals to discriminate… On top of that, central planning (federal agency) does nothing to help reduce this… the market is a far better medicine…
Plus, forcing people on how to spend their money kind of defeats the purpose of individual choice in the market. Your solution completely ignores economic laws. I think someone needs to read Economics in One Lesson by Good Ol’ Henry Hazlitt