Libertarian Topic of the Week 1: Civil Rights

[John_Mace]

This is the first of a series of threads on Libertarianism in practice. I’m hoping this helps get us away from endless debate about “what is Libertarianism” by focusing on specific issues instead of broad, sweeping generalizations.

This week’s topic is: Civil Rights (per the US Civil Rights Act of 1964).

The Libertarian position is that the government must not, in any way, discriminate by race, color, religion, gender, what have you (other than age, as in determining the age of majority) However, private businesses are free to discriminate for any of those reasons. Free people should be able to associate freely, and the government has no business telling me to whom I must sell my goods or services. If I don’t want to hire white men, I don’t have to hire white men. If I don’t want to hire black women, I don’t have to hire black women.

The government may tell me that I can’t break someone’s arm, but it can’t tell me I have to sell them a splint if their arm is broken. But there can be no law at any level of government that treats one group differently from another. Essentially, the 14th amendment of the US constitution, except there is no commerce clause to allow it to be applied to private business.

Talk amongst yourselves!

First Debate Point: Is this something that virtually all American Libertarians would agree on? (I think it is.)

Second Debate Point: Is this a good or bad thing? (I think it is. At worst, I do not think this is one of the fatal flaws of Libertarianism that would lead to it’s demises.)

Third Debate Point: Are there institutions in the private sector that could/should replace the strong arm of the government in moving a Libertarian society towards a truly equal society where discrimination in the workplace or in business was considered socially taboo? (There could be. More later…)

n.b.: Although I am a small “l” libertarian, I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, nor do I believe that a pure Libertarian state would be stable and I would not advocate for it.

[Shagnasty]

First Debate Point: Is this something that virtually all American Libertarians would agree on? (I think it is.)

I am a small ‘l’ libertarian too and I agree with it.

Second Debate Point: Is this a good or bad thing? (I think it is. At worst, I do not think this is one of the fatal flaws of Libertarianism that would lead to it’s demises.)

I think it is a good thing overall. I think private individuals and businesses should be free to discriminate if they can survive that way. The government should not. Forced equality is not real acceptance and creates a lot of other undesirable side effects.

Third Debate Point: Are there institutions in the private sector that could/should replace the strong arm of the government in moving a Libertarian society towards a truly equal society where discrimination in the workplace or in business was considered socially taboo?

I think there would be a lot less unjustified discrimination in the individual and private sectors today without heavy-handed government than most people assume. Much of the discrimination and lack of opportunity in the past was caused by government interference as well (Jim Crow laws, slavery and even some women’s rights issues). Those issues were more societal problems that were enforced and perpetuated by the government and its institutions. Taking away the government counter-responses to its own failures won’t reverse the social changes. I support strict adherence to the principle that all people should be treated equally under the law but equality in all other contexts is not a guaranteed right especially in outcome.

[Miller]

@John Mace

Second Debate Point: Is this a good or bad thing? (I think it is…)

And people wonder why Libertarianism is so often mischaracterized.

[ThisUsernameIsForbidden]

Thank you for starting the series, let’s hope it does not degrade into fallacious rhetoric. I will do my best to prevent my own posts from participating in that.

Second Debate Point: Is [allowing private businesses to discriminate] a good or bad thing?

I would have to say, no, it isn’t a good thing, with the qualification that we are talking about discrimination for any reason. I also think the way the question has been outlined–If I don’t want to hire white men, I don’t have to hire white men. If I don’t want to hire black women, I don’t have to hire black women–is loaded.

Let’s distinguish between the government telling you that you have to hire based on a quota–that at some point the government may force you to hire a black woman, for example–and the government telling you that you cannot hire someone based on race or ethnicity. I wouldn’t say you should be forced to hire based on quotas, but I would say you should be forced to not hire based on race or ethnicity. We can flesh this out more if you like, but I think people understand the difference, generally.

My general position is that businesses should hire based on merit. The best way to do that is to allow employers to hire whoever they want, but with certain caveats, like not being able to hire based on things that don’t have any causal relationship to merit. Some of those things are, I think, race, ethnicity, and gender. So you can hire whoever you want, but part of your criteria for your candidate selection can’t be those factors.

[John_Mace]

@John_Mace

Second Debate Point: Is this a good or bad thing? (I think it is…

@Miller

And people wonder why Libertarianism is so often mischaracterized.

I meant to say “I think it is a good thing”. In my lame defense, I thought I had simply asked if it was a good thing.

[John_Mace]

@ThisUsernameIsForbidden

I would have to say, no, it isn’t a good thing, with the qualification that we are talking about discrimination for any reason. I also think the way the question has been outlined–If I don’t want to hire white men, I don’t have to hire white men. If I don’t want to hire black women, I don’t have to hire black women–is loaded.

Let’s distinguish between the government telling you that you have to hire based on a quota–that at some point the government may force you to hire a black woman, for example–and the government telling you that you cannot hire someone based on race or ethnicity. I wouldn’t say you should be forced to hire based on quotas, but I would say you should be forced to not hire based on race or ethnicity. We can flesh this out more if you like, but I think people understand the difference, generally.

I didn’t intend the question to be loaded, and meant it to mean it as you describe the situation.

[Simplicio]

If a few individuals want to discriminate against various groups, I don’t think the gov’t should step in. If some schmuck down the street doesn’t want to serve black people in his bar, I won’t frequent his business, but I don’t necessarily think there needs to be a law against his behavior.

But I think the problems arise when you have a widespread system of discrimination targeted at relatively weak and/or small minority. If a black guy can’t go to a particular bar, then while that’s unfortunate, I don’t think its worth overriding the bar owners property rights to remedy. But when the businesses of entire towns shut out black people, then I think the public interest in protecting minorities over-rides the property rights of the business owners.

This is especially true in cases like the Jim Crowe South, when the distribution of property was based in part on a system of oppression of black people. “People should be able to control their own property” sounds fair, but when an unfair system of slavery and then legal repression has kept one particular group from actually owning much property, it isn’t.

[John_Mace]

@Simplicio

If a few individuals want to discriminate against various groups, I don’t think the gov’t should step in. If some schmuck down the street doesn’t want to serve black people in his bar, I won’t frequent his business, but I don’t necessarily think there needs to be a law against his behavior.

But I think the problems arise when you have a widespread system of discrimination targeted at relatively weak and/or small minority. If a black guy can’t go to a particular bar, then while that’s unfortunate, I don’t think its worth overriding the bar owners property rights to remedy. But when the businesses of entire towns shut out black people, then I think the public interest in protecting minorities over-rides the property rights of the business owners.

So how do you put something like that into practice? When does the government step in? When 20% of the businesses discriminate? 50% 90%

This is especially true in cases like the Jim Crowe South, when the distribution of property was based in part on a system of oppression of black people. “People should be able to control their own property” sounds fair, but when an unfair system of slavery and then legal repression has kept one particular group from actually owning much property, it isn’t.

Stepping out of the libertarian discussion for a minute, I do think the slaves should have been compensated in some way. Setting them free was great and wonderful, but just turning them lose with all the disadvantages they had was not just.

[zoid]

I’d be a lot more comfortable saying you can hire whoever you want for any reason you want, but you must serve everyone.

[Simplicio]

@John_Mace

So how do you put something like that into practice? When does the government step in? When 20% of the businesses discriminate? 50% 90%

My understanding is that the situation I described is the justification for the idea of Protected Classes. In general business owners can refuse to serve whomever they want to, but for certain groups that have suffered systematized and wide-spread discrimination as part of an effort to keep them as an underclass, business owners have to show an actual reason to keep them out beyond “keeping down the darkies”.

I’m not sure that’s the perfect solution, but I think its a reasonable compromise between respecting ownership rights while still protecting minorities from organized efforts to use private property to lock them out of public life.

Stepping out of the libertarian discussion for a minute, I do think the slaves should have been compensated in some way. Setting them free was great and wonderful, but just turning them lose with all the disadvantages they had was not just.

Fair enough, but given that’s not what happened in 1866, what should’ve been done in 1964? Plus its not like slavery is the only issue, post-Civil War, American blacks suffered another century of institutionalized oppression. It’s well a good to say things should’ve been gone differently, but lawmakers in 1964 had to deal with how things had actually gone. Southern whites had used their control of the gov’t, violence and terrorism to keep blacks an impoverished under-class, and as such controlled most of the private property, and systematically used that control to continue the status-quo. Certainly that shouldn’t have been allowed to happen in the first place, but the question is 1964 was how to fix it.

[John_Mace]

@Simplicio

My understanding is that the situation I described is the justification for the idea of Protected Classes. In general business owners can refuse to serve whomever they want to, but for certain groups that have suffered systematized and wide-spread discrimination as part of an effort to keep them as an underclass, business owners have to show an actual reason to keep them out beyond “keeping down the darkies”.

I’m not sure that’s the perfect solution, but I think its a reasonable compromise between respecting ownership rights while still protecting minorities from organized efforts to use private property to lock them out of public life.

OK, but that sounds different from your first post, where you said that the government should step in only when some town had an overwhelming level of discrimination. Protected Classes extend everywhere, even when there was little or no discrimination.

Fair enough, but given that’s not what happened in 1866, what should’ve been done in 1964? Plus its not like slavery is the only issue, post-Civil War, American blacks suffered another century of institutionalized oppression. It’s well a good to say things should’ve been gone differently, but lawmakers in 1964 had to deal with how things had actually gone. Southern whites had used their control of the gov’t, violence and terrorism to keep blacks an impoverished under-class, and as such controlled most of the private property, and systematically used that control to continue the status-quo. Certainly that shouldn’t have been allowed to happen in the first place, but the question is 1964 was how to fix it.

Reparations. I’m for them, provided the government can then step back and doesn’t have the authority to outlaw discrimination in the private sector.

[BobLibDem]

That rumble you hear is Rosa Parks rolling in her grave.

First Debate Point: Is this something that virtually all American Libertarians would agree on? I have no idea and even less interest. That this might be a universal belief among libertarians serves only to illustrate the utter moral depravity of that philosophy.

Second Debate Point: Is this a good or bad thing? Of course not. Jim Crow had its day, and thank goodness and LBJ, it’s over. If you run a business, you serve the public. The public is everybody. Don’t want to serve blacks, women, Hispanics, atheists, or Muslims? Don’t open a business.
Third Debate Point: Are there institutions in the private sector that could/should replace the strong arm of the government in moving a Libertarian society towards a truly equal society where discrimination in the workplace or in business was considered socially taboo? Not that I would trust. Do I trust private business to not pollute the water without government oversight? Do I want to return to buying meat from plants that are not subject to inspection? Then why would we trust anyone in the private sector to do the right thing? Private institutions do not serve the public interest, they serve their own interest.

[Little_Nemo]

@John_Mace

First Debate Point: Is this something that virtually all American Libertarians would agree on?

I’ll pass on this one. As you know, I’m not a libertarian.

@John_Mace

Second Debate Point: Is this a good or bad thing?

I’m going with bad thing. No right is absolute. There’s the cliche about your right to swing your arm ending at the point where my face begins. So you have to balance the competing rights of various people. And I don’t see why bigots should be placed near the top. I place bigots alongside criminals and pedophiles - their rights to do what they want should be given a minimal priority because the actions they want to do harm other people. So I place a higher value on people being free of the effects of bigotry than I place on the freedom to practice bigotry.

On a side note, I don’t agree with the notion that the only form of harm one person can do to another is physical force. There are plenty of other ways people can harm each other.

@John_Mace

Third Debate Point: Are there institutions in the private sector that could/should replace the strong arm of the government in moving a Libertarian society towards a truly equal society where discrimination in the workplace or in business was considered socially taboo?

Social pressure might do it. Bigotry has become less acceptable in society in the last few decades. But I feel that social pressure alone won’t get the job done. And probably wouldn’t have gotten it started - I feel the current climate of social disapproval of bigotry is the product of state opposition to bigotry.

[Bone]

First - I agree.

Second - It is a good thing independent of the results.

Third - If there were consumer agencies that sprouted up, like glassdoor.com or BBB that served to rate various places, that’d be just fine. For places that chose to discriminate I’m fine with the community taking their dollars elsewhere.

Carried further, this would eliminate hate crimes which I think are a terrible idea. It would also make gay marriage a reality for so long as marriage was performed by the State. The idea of a protected class is bullshit - a perfect example of the government treating people differently based on race.

I would have been fine with reparations at the time - but not today starting from where we are now.

[The_Lurker_Above]

@John_Mace

Stepping out of the libertarian discussion for a minute, I do think the slaves should have been compensated in some way. Setting them free was great and wonderful, but just turning them lose with all the disadvantages they had was not just.

Isn’t the lack of compensation just a horrible example of the kind of problem you’re always going to face going from a non-libertarian to a (more)libertarian system.

People have piles of advantages/disadvantages and accumulated wealth/lack thereof from the unfair (from a libertarian perspective) old system. Few people who are ‘winners’ under the old system are going to want to change to a system where they don’t have the same benefits. And even if the ‘losers’ in the old system believe that a libertarian system would be more fair, few are going to want to start the race so far behind.

[Trinopus]

I agree that it isn’t a flaw in libertarian ideas and ideals that would lead to its downfall. I do think, though, that history would repeat itself, and that even a libertarian system would soon see the need to regulate commerce to prevent arrant discrimination in hiring, buying, selling, renting, and other accommodation.

It is sad that we have to legislate and enforce civil rights in an advanced, forward-looking, open, moral society. It only shows that we aren’t as moral as we’d like to be. It’s sad we have to enforce laws against theft, too. If all people were angels…

I hold with the traditional liberal viewpoint, that allowing a society to divide itself by institutions of discrimination is more harmful than the regulatory burden that accompanies the remedy for such discrimination.

What is, to me, most painfully evident is that the free market does not provide the solution that some libertarian theorists have said it would. In theory, the discriminated-against population constitutes a huge economic opportunity, eager to work, desperate to buy and sell, and thus a dynamo of profit. In practice, racism is so attractive to so many people, it was able to become entrenched as a permanent economic barrier, stymieing even those who would have reached out across it to everyone’s mutual benefit.

I can respect the libertarian’s desire to be free of intrusive regulation, but when the results are so dire and harmful, I simply have to vote for the regulation. A permanent underclass is more harmful than the civil rights laws.

[Simplicio]

@John_Mace

OK, but that sounds different from your first post, where you said that the government should step in only when some town had an overwhelming level of discrimination. Protected Classes extend everywhere, even when there was little or no discrimination.

Like I said, its not a perfect system, but I think it gets the job done. I could imagine more targeted laws, but I think they’d end up being difficult to administer, and prone to abuse. The current status-quo seems a good compromise.

Plus while I’m philosophically in favour of respecting peoples property rights as much as possible, I can’t say I’m really haunted by the idea that a bar-owner might have to serve a black person a drink even if he doesn’t want to. I have a much bigger problem with property owners organizing to use their businesses to oppress black people, so to the extent that the law might be a bit too narrow or a bit to expansive, I’d rather the latter.

Reparations. I’m for them, provided the government can then step back and doesn’t have the authority to outlaw discrimination in the private sector.

Reparations would have to be pretty huge by 1964 to make any real dent in the disparity resulting from centuries of oppression. And there’d be pretty wide fairness issues. My relatives were all in Ireland until the 40’s, it seems kind of unfair that they should have to pay a large tax to cover the wrongs that mainly benefited the families of whites that were here during the period in question.

So I think the solution that was implemented in 1964 was the right one. One might imagine theoretical laws that could’ve been better, but I don’t think there are any that were actually workable. And I certainly think the 1964 law was far better then doing nothing.

[Czarcasm]

@John_Mace

The Libertarian position is that the government must not, in any way, discriminate by race, color, religion, gender, what have you (other than age, as in determining the age of majority) However, private businesses are free to discriminate for any of those reasons.

But if it is the Libertarian position(and please correct me if I’m wrong) that government should be shrunk to the point where it doesn’t get in the way of the business entrepreneur, doesn’t this mean more discrimination in the long run?

[ThisUsernameIsForbidden]

Plus while I’m philosophically in favour of respecting peoples property rights as much as possible, I can’t say I’m really haunted by the idea that a bar-owner might have to serve a black person a drink even if he doesn’t want to.

Fair point, which leads me to the question: to what extent can a moderate libertarian (if there is such a thing) allow infringement? I can only think of a couple of cases that made me feel uncomfortable regarding eminent domain. But then, my biggest problem with property rights is that I can’t afford property.

[Little_Nemo]

@Simplicio

Plus while I’m philosophically in favour of respecting peoples property rights as much as possible, I can’t say I’m really haunted by the idea that a bar-owner might have to serve a black person a drink even if he doesn’t want to.

The way I see it there are competing freedoms here. A family wants to be free to eat at the restaurant of their choice (assuming normal things like it’s open for business). A restaurant owner may want to be free to turn away people because he doesn’t like their ethnic group. Whose freedom comes out on top?

Personally, if I have to pick which person is going to have his freedom limited, I’m picking the bigot.