# decentralize government and conservative anarchist or libertarian **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2013, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712 "2013-04-03T08:02:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2013, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/81 "2013-04-08T22:38:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s a legal document, not a moral document. I did not claim the Constitution to be a moral document. I quite clearly wrote that at times constitutional decisions by the courts and lawmakers, when ambiguity exists, are based on what would be considered moral factors. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/82 "2013-04-09T00:33:19Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Since you insist on being literal, where in the Constitution do the the racist business owners have their inherent right to discriminate immortalized in writing? Fifth Amendment. No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Title II infringes on that right. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/83 "2013-04-09T03:38:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Fifth Amendment. > > No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. > > Title II infringes on that right. NO one is taking property from any of the racists business owners for public use. Racist business owners put the property up for public use when they unlock the doors and invite the public in. They just have to treat black folks as equal human beings to white folks when they open the door. Discrimination is a violation of the black folks rights and even Rand Paul says he agrees with that. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/84 "2013-04-09T03:47:22Z")
Your restaurant owner can lock up his business and go fishing for a few days and there is no problem. NO one has a ‘right’ to make him open his busienss. He just cannot open for business and decide that certain people of similar situation and station in life cannot enter or use his business because of race, color or religion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/85 "2013-04-09T04:42:48Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Other people’s freedom is hard to tolerate, isn’t it? Not really. I am a big proponent that my right to swing a fist ends at your face. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/86 "2013-04-09T04:55:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Other people’s freedom is hard to tolerate, isn’t it? Indeed it is, if it stinks. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/87 "2013-04-09T12:19:56Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > NO one is taking property from any of the racists business owners for public use. The property isn’t seized outright, no (which is why the law wasn’t found unconstitutional; it wasn’t a “direct appropriation”). The state is taking control of the property, however, which should also be forbidden. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Racist business owners put the property up for public use when they unlock the doors and invite the public in. They just have to treat black folks as equal human beings to white folks when they open the door. Discrimination is a violation of the black folks rights and even Rand Paul says he agrees with that. Public use does not equate to public ownership. That is the heart of the disagreement here. Given that this is a tangent of a tangent (from whatever the OP was trying to debate, to Rand Paul, to the Civil Rights Act), and boils down to how a given individual interprets the Fifth Amendment and the proper role of government, I think we’ve laid out where we stand, and will begin winding down my participation this discussion. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Not really. I am a big proponent that my right to swing a fist ends at your face. I agree, but there’s no “punch” here, no harm done to others. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Indeed it is, if it stinks. It’s always tempting to outlaw things we don’t like, and remove choices. That is a very dangerous road to go down, though. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/88 "2013-04-09T12:56:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Indeed it is, if it stinks. Have you noticed that Human Action submitted as part of the pro-libertarian argument against Title II in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a request for me to produce a literal statement in the Constitution that gives racial minorities the right to eat in at any restaurant they choose. As part of my response I requested that Human Action produce literal wording in the Constitution the gives the right to racist business owners to discriminate against their patrons on the basis of race. Human Action produced this: > [@](#): > > Fifth Amendment. “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Title II infringes on that right. First off, that is not a literal constitutional establishment of a right for business owners to discriminate against some of their patrons. Secondly, there no depriving of property by the government with regard to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And there is no taking of property for public use such as to build a road or government facility. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/89 "2013-04-09T12:58:07Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I did not claim the Constitution to be a moral document. I quite clearly wrote that at times constitutional decisions by the courts and lawmakers, when ambiguity exists, are based on what would be considered moral factors. Says who? Besides, I dispute that there is any ambiguity. There is public property and private property. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/90 "2013-04-09T13:07:08Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > First off, that is not a literal constitutional establishment of a right for business owners to discriminate against some of their patrons. > > Secondly, there no depriving of property by the government with regard to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And there is no taking of property for public use such as to build a road or government facility. Being deprived of the use of property is deprivation of property. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/91 "2013-04-09T14:37:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Says who? Besides, I dispute that there is any ambiguity. There is public property and private property. The ambiguity being addresses is not about public versus private property. The ambiguity is about whose rights deserve more protection. And the Civil Rights Act Title II comes down strongly in favor of patrons rights to engage in commerce at privately run businesses **that are open to the public** by making it a crime for business owners to discriminate and refuse access to certain groups when on the basis of race or religion. The law has held for nearly fifty years and is constitutional. There is no ambiguity there. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/92 "2013-04-09T14:39:55Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The ambiguity being addresses is not about public versus private property. > > The ambiguity is about whose rights deserve more protection. And the Civil Rights Act Title II comes down strongly in favor of patrons rights to engage in commerce at privately run businesses **that are open to the public** by making it a crime for business owners to discriminate and refuse access to certain groups when on the basis of race or religion. > > The law has held for nearly fifty years and is constitutional. There is no ambiguity there. When you are ready to discuss things that people actually post or are arguing about, let us know. Until then, well… we all know how long the law has been in place. Perhaps you can use that same logic on DOMA. The law has been in place for “X” years. Case closed. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/93 "2013-04-09T15:04:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Being deprived of the use of property is deprivation of property. It appears that you oppose any broad interpretation of the commerce clause when that does not go your way, however you insist that we accept your broad interpretation of the Fifth Admendment and what constitutes deprivation of use of property or confiscation of property by the government is such cases commonly known as emanate domain. By the way, I don’t see the interpretation of the Commerce Clause associated with Title II to be a broad one. People, including black people do conduct commerce when traveling across state lines. Any business that serves Americans as they travel and dine should be open to all Americans regardless of their race. You and Mace don’t agree with that, which is fine; but can we have agreement that your view is not sealed with gold as precisely based upon what us written in the Constitution or limited mostly to your interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/94 "2013-04-09T15:09:17Z")
Interstate commerce is the flow of goods, not people, across state lines. And besides, Title II has nothing to do with travel, and affects any business, not just hotels and restaurants. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/95 "2013-04-09T15:10:40Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The ambiguity is about whose rights deserve more protection. And the Civil Rights Act Title II comes down strongly in favor of patrons rights to engage in commerce at privately run businesses **that are open to the public** by making it a crime for business owners to discriminate and refuse access to certain groups when on the basis of race or religion. Liberals, and even conservatives for that matter have no logically consistent concept of rights. If rights are contradictory, then what you have is a poor concept of rights. Libertarians believe you have a right to life, liberty, and property. You do not have a right to another’s life, another’s liberty, or another’s property. They do not believe you have the right to engage in a forced transaction with another that is unwilling. This is pretty simple when you break it down. Supporters of the CRA believe that it is moral to threaten an individual with physical force to conduct business as the majority believes it should be conducted. The introduction of race, religion, etc. is completely arbitrary. If you have no right to discriminate over these things, you should have no right to discriminate, period. > [@](#): > > The law has held for nearly fifty years and is constitutional. There is no ambiguity there. The law has held for nearly fifty years and is unconstitutional. Whats that about ambiguity again? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/96 "2013-04-09T15:18:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > When you are ready to discuss things that people actually post or are arguing about, let us know. I have been discussing only what Human Action and I and some others have been discussing here the past dozen posts or more. If you can identify where you think I went astray please be specific. If you can’t identify what you are accusing me of, I will take note that you have no genuine or credible counter argument or point to mine, and you gracefully saying farewell. It has been nice hearing from you on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/97 "2013-04-09T15:34:40Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It appears that you oppose any broad interpretation of the commerce clause when that does not go your way, however you insist that we accept your broad interpretation of the Fifth Admendment and what constitutes deprivation of use of property or confiscation of property by the government is such cases commonly known as emanate domain. I come down on the side of freedom, and limited government. I’m a libertarian; of course I do. Reading the Bill of Rights broadly secures more liberty for the people. Reading the powers of Congress narrowly secures more liberty for the people. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > By the way, I don’t see the interpretation of the Commerce Clause associated with Title II to be a broad one. > > People, including black people do conduct commerce when traveling across state lines. So, what type of laws affecting businesses would _not_ be justified under the Commerce Clause, then? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Any business that serves Americans as they travel and dine should be open to all Americans regardless of their race. Should be, sure. But that’s up to the owner, I have no right to force them to do business against their will. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You and Mace don’t agree with that, which is fine; but can we have agreement that your view is not sealed with gold as precisely based upon what us written in the Constitution or limited mostly to your interpretation. Nobody is claiming divine inspiration here. Obviously these are our own interpretations of what’s morally right, Constitutional, and legal. Can we counter-agree that Title II _is_, in fact, an infringement upon business owner’s rights, just one that you feel is justified by the need for racial harmony & social justice and such? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/98 "2013-04-09T15:38:44Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I have been discussing only what Human Action and I and some others have been discussing here the past dozen posts or more. > > If you can identify where you think I went astray please be specific. If you can’t identify what you are accusing me of, I will take note that you have no genuine or credible counter argument or point to mine, and you gracefully saying farewell. > > It has been nice hearing from you on this matter. OK. I don’t know why I let myself get roped into this thread hijack of yours anyway. You don’t like libertarians. Good for you. But you don’t get to redefine what the word means to suit your purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/99 "2013-04-09T15:42:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. I don’t know why I let myself get roped into this thread hijack of yours anyway. You don’t like libertarians. Good for you. But you don’t get to redefine what the word means to suit your purposes. To be fair, it was a hijack of a flight with no pilot. I still have no idea what the OP was trying to debate. **NotfooledbyW** , could you answer my question from post #69? > [@](#): > > Any other rights that apply to private businesses, rather than the state? That is, what other rights restrain fellow citizens, rather than the government? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/100 "2013-04-09T16:06:21Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Can we counter-agree that Title II _is_, in fact, an infringement upon business owner’s rights, just one that you feel is justified by the need for racial harmony & social justice and such? This depends on whether one believes a business owner has the right to turn away customers due to race or religion (or sexual orientation, etc). Based on [Supreme Court decisions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause#Civil_rights) like Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Daniel vs Paul (1964) it appears that the Supreme Court has determined that business owners do not have this right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712.md?page=6)