# Libertarian Topic of the Week 1: Civil Rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 14, 2014, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118 "2014-04-14T23:19:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**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 18, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/321 "2014-04-18T14:54:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There are 30M blacks that live in the US. While some local yokel businessman might want to exclude them and not worry about a boycott, national chains are not going to risk giving up the business of that large a number of customers, plus the whites and folks of other races that would boycott them. To the extent that those towns are off the map of the national chains, then I would just say this: Would you, today, if you were black, plan a vacation in the middle of the Ozarks at a town that is 97% white with a population of 2,200? I wouldn’t. Sure, for the national chains. But I think there are, unfortunately, lots of white Americans who would be willing to do without national chains to live in an all-white town. By “lots” I don’t mean anything close to a majority, but some number approaching 5-10% (of American white people) nationally, and perhaps 20-30% in some states (these numbers are, of course, just a guess based on my own experience). If I’m right about those numbers, then there would be a significant ‘market’ for all-white towns and all-white businesses. There might even be regional chains that could exploit it – small burger and chicken chains that guarantee only white hands will touch your food, or some such. And this could result in big chunks of the country in which it’s not safe for black people to travel – nowhere to stop to eat, nowhere to stop for the night, etc. So sure, they probably won’t vacation at that crappy little hick town, but they might need to drive through it someday. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/322 "2014-04-18T14:56:33Z")
No, towns are NOT welcome to wallow in their bigotry. We tried this and we changed it for the better. If this is an essential feature of libertarianism, then fuck libertarianism. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/323 "2014-04-18T15:10:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Just as it’s shorter to type, _“the systematic discrimination in the South by both public and private entities”_, it’s a lot shorter to not have to type out that of course slavery would not be permitted and would be squashed by the law enforcement arm of the government. In fact, I did write that earlier in the thread. > > If you would strike the last two lines (out of four), I think that is a decent high level summation. Yes, you did write that. You also wrote that it is better to tolerate the net detriment to society created by discrimination rather than infringe upon the principle that government should not infringe upon business. Except that the first principle instead appears to be that OF COURSE government should infringe upon businesses when it is in the best interests of the libertarian society. You can write OF COURSE all you want, but you’re not in any way making clear why it’s okay to tolerate infringement in one circumstance and not another, when the infringement itself (or avoidance thereof) is the only benefit you can point to. I say OF COURSE government should intervene to prevent slavery and discrimination, as both are detrimental to society. Explain why from a libertarian point of view that is not correct. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/324 "2014-04-18T15:12:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Here’s a real world example. A business owner can have to under-performing individuals, one white male, the other in a protected class. In determining which one to fire, all other things being equal, the white male is the logical choice. This is because they have less basis to sue and therefore presents a lower risk. Even if the scale was tilted against the person in the protected class, the white male remains the logical choice until the increased risk of firing the person in the protected class is exceeded by the under-performance of the white male. That’s a bad thing, do you agree? This is the current business landscape. Overall this leads to a less efficient business and a detriment to the economy overall, all other things being equal. Which real world does this example come from? In the real world I live in, it’s way off-base. “Protected class” doesn’t mean groups of people who aren’t white males. A white male belongs to any number of protected classes: white people, male people, straight or (maybe) gay people, people over 40, maybe, people of his religion, people from his nation of origin, etc. If he’s fired because he’s a white guy, he has every bit the same right to sue over that as anybody else would. Unless you mean he’d have a weaker case because you assumed that a business owner would be a white male. If that’s true, it’s not a weakness in the operation of the law, which is neutral in the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. It’s a result of discrimination in the marketplace. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/325 "2014-04-18T15:27:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What Libertarianism does assume is that if someone wants to discriminate, he’s free to do so as long it involves his own property. He can’t make laws that discriminate, but he can choose his customers just like he can choose his vendors. I just wanted to come back to this because I didn’t have the opportunity to reply yesterday. This is where I see the autism of Libertarianism kicking in. People with autism, in addition to preferring social isolation and struggling with empathy, have difficulty discerning the forest for the trees. They struggle with part/whole issues (and may even break down percepts even further than that, but I digress). So, if a member of a society experiences discrimination from one person, that’s one thing. When the experience discrimination from a second person, it’s not simply one additional experience. In other words, the weight of multiple experiences of discrimination is multiplicative, if not exponential. From a different perspective, 1,000 people living in proximity to one another is a community, not just 1,000 people living in proximity to one another. The forest is more than just the trees. If I am discriminated against by 99 businesses and finally get served by 1, while you attempt to get served by 1 and are served there, we have both been served an equal number of times by an equal number of individuals. But our experience of our society is not equal. You can’t just say our society is fine because any person is free to “choose another vendor,” and call it quits. If Libertaria purports to be a society, one has to evaluate its merits as a society. ---
**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 18, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/326 "2014-04-18T16:14:19Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I just wanted to come back to this because I didn’t have the opportunity to reply yesterday. > > This is where I see the autism of Libertarianism kicking in. People with autism, in addition to preferring social isolation and struggling with empathy, have difficulty discerning the forest for the trees. They struggle with part/whole issues (and may even break down percepts even further than that, but I digress). > > So, if a member of a society experiences discrimination from one person, that’s one thing. When the experience discrimination from a second person, it’s not simply one additional experience. In other words, the weight of multiple experiences of discrimination is multiplicative, if not exponential. > > From a different perspective, 1,000 people living in proximity to one another is a community, not just 1,000 people living in proximity to one another. The forest is more than just the trees. If I am discriminated against by 99 businesses and finally get served by 1, while you attempt to get served by 1 and are served there, we have both been served an equal number of times by an equal number of individuals. But our experience of our society is not equal. > > You can’t just say our society is fine because any person is free to “choose another vendor,” and call it quits. > > If Libertaria purports to be a society, one has to evaluate its merits as a society. I, personally would not disagree with that in principle. I’m sure you and I would disagree on the details, though. And even today in the US, private clubs are allowed to discriminate, and perhaps you would like to eliminate that, too, but most people hardly ever think of that. Unless we are pure Libertarians, it’s all about where we draw the line, not whether a line should be drawn at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/327 "2014-04-18T16:36:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > By “lots” I don’t mean anything close to a majority, but some number approaching 5-10% (of American white people) nationally, and perhaps 20-30% in some states (these numbers are, of course, just a guess based on my own experience). If I’m right about those numbers, then there would be a significant ‘market’ for all-white towns and all-white businesses. I think along this line of thinking, it would be impossible to determine what the actual numbers would be. For the sake of example, how small would the figures have to be for you to believe that anti-discrimination laws were no longer necessary or a net benefit? > [@Stonebow](#): > > The thing about theory and practice; in theory, they have identical outcomes, but in practice, they do not. Your above point makes just enough sense to make it plausible, but tends to ignore both historical counter-examples and current day practice. > > As sketched out, the above scenario does seem ‘a bad thing.’ However, does it seem worse than the historical pattern of non-white, non-male, non-christian(of whatever dominant flavor) being last hired, first fired? I do not even attribute malice to business owners in this, simply a function of wanting to be surrounded by people like one’s self. However, given that capital has historically been concentrated in a small number of hands, the secondary effect of lockout from the economy seems the greater evil (along the same lines as sundown towns, I suppose). Further, whether your risk weighing goes on or not, it still remains that the majority group holds the vast majorit of capital, and among employees, the greater percentages (as a part of the workforce) among mid and upper level management. I suppose you could call the current state of affairs ‘reverse’ something or other, but that begs the question- do you propose any alternative fix? Do you acknowledge that any fix is needed? And do you belong to the group that has historically had the advantage? I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Can you maybe clarify or say it in a different way? I am reading this saying a couple of things - that discrimination is okay if it’s against groups that hold the capital, that risk avoidance is bad in this fashion, but it’s not as bad as other things, etc. I am sure I’m not getting the whole picture though so if you could clarify that’d be helpful. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Yes, you did write that. You also wrote that it is better to tolerate the net detriment to society created by discrimination rather than infringe upon the principle that government should not infringe upon business. I don’t believe there would be a net detriment to society. I’m not sure where you’re getting that. I’ve acknowledged that there would of course be instances of bad outcomes. > [@](#): > > Except that the first principle instead appears to be that OF COURSE government should infringe upon businesses when it is in the best interests of the libertarian society. > > You can write OF COURSE all you want, but you’re not in any way making clear why it’s okay to tolerate infringement in one circumstance and not another, when the infringement itself (or avoidance thereof) is the only benefit you can point to. > > I say OF COURSE government should intervene to prevent slavery and discrimination, as both are detrimental to society. Explain why from a libertarian point of view that is not correct. It’s one of the premises that government has a role to play in rule enforcement. It is also one of the premises that government must not discriminate. And again it is one of the premises that slavery would not be permissible. These are some of the parameters of the thread. I’m unclear as to what you are taking exception to. > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Which real world does this example come from? In the real world I live in, it’s way off-base. “Protected class” doesn’t mean groups of people who aren’t white males. A white male belongs to any number of protected classes: white people, male people, straight or (maybe) gay people, people over 40, maybe, people of his religion, people from his nation of origin, etc. If he’s fired because he’s a white guy, he has every bit the same right to sue over that as anybody else would. I’m not sure what your experience in large business is but what you wrote makes me think it’s limited. Correct me if I’m wrong. While in theory a protected class would include things like race and gender that white males belong to, in practice businesses are only concerned with certain members of protected classes. Those would include minorities, older folks, women, and in some states gay folks. The protection of being in a protected class has a real impact on business decisions. It could play out like in the example I gave which is pretty straight forward. It affects hiring decisions on who to hire or whether to hire someone at all. It affects people unrelated to those decisions in many cases as well. When terminating someone, it is fairly common practice to pay them in exchange for a liability release so you do not get sued. This is just a cost of business that has come about because in part the impact of anti-discrimination laws. Employers who are good actors bear the cost of risk avoidance every day. * * * \*\*Miller \*\*above was asking the “otherwise” part, or, what do we as a society get in return for both getting government out of business and tolerating this bad behavior. My contention multifold: Individual liberty itself will be increased, the overall bad behavior will be very minor, there would be an increase in efficiency in commerce. That’s not all inclusive, but some of the major components. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/328 "2014-04-18T16:46:27Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Okay, let me try it this way. > > Let’s take your version of how things would work out. We adopt a libertarian system of government, and laws against racial and gender discrimination are removed. For the most part, society doesn’t change too much in regards to race relations. Some outliers take the opportunity to discriminate, but they’re fairly rare. \*Maybe \*one or two towns effectively become “sundown” towns. The total number of people whose lives are seriously disrupted is less than a thousand. Which, we all agree, is very unfortunate for them, and the people who fired/evicted/whatever them are gigantic dickheads. But in the long term, it’s for the best, because by removing those laws, we have achieved and/or avoided \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ . > > You get to fill in the blank. I think the answer is crickets. ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/329 "2014-04-18T16:55:39Z")
Forget about Jim Crow, sundown towns, and whether businesses discriminating against ethnic minorities is a rational economic decision or not. Let’s try to get closer to the bottom line. In Libertopia, one assumes that there would be no equivalent to the [PDA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act) or [FMLA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993). Does anyone really not believe that a significant number of employers would overtly discriminate against pregnant women in the workplace, whether via hiring or firing? Does anyone really not believe that a significant number (most?) employers would fail to provide adequate parental leave for those women that they do hire or retain? How would the resident [Ll]ibertarians feel about such a situation? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/330 "2014-04-18T17:02:32Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > LBJ is viewed today as a clown except by true believers. :rolleyes: ---
**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 18, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/331 "2014-04-18T17:19:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think along this line of thinking, it would be impossible to determine what the actual numbers would be. For the sake of example, how small would the figures have to be for you to believe that anti-discrimination laws were no longer necessary or a net benefit? Probably a fraction of 1%. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/332 "2014-04-18T17:43:42Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s one of the premises that government has a role to play in rule enforcement. It is also one of the premises that government must not discriminate. And again it is one of the premises that slavery would not be permissible. These are some of the parameters of the thread. I’m unclear as to what you are taking exception to. This is non-responsive. You seem to think this “government can’t discriminate” is an answer, but it’s just a facile dodge. “If you run a business in Libertaria, you must serve everyone equally.” - There’s nothing discriminatory in that principle whatsoever. Government has a role to play in rule enforcement, and it can enforce that rule. You have yet been unable to describe any sort of reason why “You cannot enslave someone else” is a viable premise, while “You must serve everyone if you run a business” is not. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/333 "2014-04-18T18:13:11Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > This is non-responsive. You seem to think this “government can’t discriminate” is an answer, but it’s just a facile dodge. > > “If you run a business in Libertaria, you must serve everyone equally.” - There’s nothing discriminatory in that principle whatsoever. Government has a role to play in rule enforcement, and it can enforce that rule. You have yet been unable to describe any sort of reason why “You cannot enslave someone else” is a viable premise, while “You must serve everyone if you run a business” is not. I’m really trying to understand what point you’re trying to make but I’m not seeing it. I’ve responded to all direct questions so I hope you believe that there is no attempt to dodge. It seems to me that you are saying if a business is allowed to discriminate, then they are allowed to enslave by extension and you are looking for how one can be prohibited and the other not while remaining consistent. Is that it? Rules that prohibit slavery operate independent of rules that regulate business. Slavery is prohibited based on first principles. So while yes the proponents in this thread are advocating for government to get out of business which happens to include the Title II protections of the Civil Rights Act, this would not permit businesses to enslave people, murder people, commit fraud, torture, or any other coercive act as defined. The distinction in general is one where the rule structure would be set up so businesses can operate however they choose and interact with others any way they choose as long as they do so in a voluntary manner. Consent of all parties would be required. This is why slavery is not allowed (only one side is consenting) but discrimination would not be prohibited. In the context of this thread, businesses are not required to serve everyone and if they don’t volunteer to do so, no one can force them. If you think of a business as an extension of the individual an example could be as follows: If two people meet on the street and they wish to talk to each other they can do so. If only one wishes to talk to the other then they probably wont talk because the non-participant is free to leave. No individual can force another to talk with them if the target person doesn’t want to. In no sense does refusal to talk with someone mean that you can enslave them. Apply this to business and that’s what’s being described. If a business doesn’t want to talk to you, they simply don’t do business with you. They aren’t enslaving you nor does their refusal to do business mean that they now have enslaving powers. Let me know if I’ve addressed your objection. I don’t expect you to agree with the philosophy but it is consistent within itself. ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/334 "2014-04-18T19:52:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Can you maybe clarify or say it in a different way? I am reading this saying a couple of things - that discrimination is okay if it’s against groups that hold the capital, that risk avoidance is bad in this fashion, but it’s not as bad as other things, etc. I am sure I’m not getting the whole picture though so if you could clarify that’d be helpful. **Bone** , thanks for the response. Honestly, \*\*Jimmy Chitwood \*\*stated my point more concisely and eloquently. My issue with with your premise. In my experience in both public and private sectors, the risk assessment you discuss does not have the impact you describe, at least not in any significant way. Looking at the current distribution of ownership and management in business, it seems counterintuitive. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/335 "2014-04-18T19:54:53Z")
What about slavery with consent? I don’t just mean businesses saying “Oh, sure, we asked them all and they all agreed to it. Look, here’s the contracts. No, don’t go talk to them!”. But I think there would be some people - few enough, perhaps, but some - who’d willingly sign up if it meant a roof over their heads and food enough to keep them alive. Acceptable in Libertopia? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/336 "2014-04-18T20:00:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > . . . Emphasis added. Now, if **Miller** wants to come back and say that what he meant by that phrase was “government can’t discriminate, but private businesses can”, then I will say he’s misusing the term. Surely the qualifier “full force” means government can and does discriminate. No? While I do agree that there has been some topic drift (like that never happens around here) at this point the OP has come back and called this point obtuse. The whole system of living in the Old and Foetid South was “Jim Crow.” Both the laws and the society. Evil times, and I hold libertarians to be less than morally sterling for suggesting that we should remove the safeguards that prevent such a system from arising again. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/337 "2014-04-18T20:49:19Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > What about slavery with consent? > > I don’t just mean businesses saying “Oh, sure, we asked them all and they all agreed to it. Look, here’s the contracts. No, don’t go talk to them!”. But I think there would be some people - few enough, perhaps, but some - who’d willingly sign up if it meant a roof over their heads and food enough to keep them alive. Acceptable in Libertopia? It’s not slavery if there is consent. This is definitional. The key is consent and a libertarian wouldnt interfere with two consenting adults. They can engage in sexual relations, punching each other in the groin, manual labor, or even killing each other. If it’s voluntary between consenting adults it’s not my place to intervene with force. I may attempt to persuade them of the unwiseness of their choices but that’s the limit of how much I would intercede. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/338 "2014-04-18T21:14:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s not slavery if there is consent. This is definitional. Perhaps that’s how you define it, but it’s not part of the definitions i’ve heard of. Here’s a few; [[QUOTE=dictionary.com](http://QUOTE=dictionary.com)] 1.a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. 2.a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug. 3.a drudge: a housekeeping slave. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Oxford English Dictionary] a. One who is the property of, and entirely subject to, another person, whether by capture, purchase, or birth; a servant completely divested of freedom and personal rights [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Chambers English Dictionary] 1 _historical_ someone owned by and acting as servant to another, with no personal freedom. 2 a person who is submissive under domination. 3 a person who works extremely hard for another; a drudge. [/QUOTE] Slavery is strongly associated with lack of consent, for obvious reasons. But slavery has in the past included persons who willingly signed up for a term of servitude. I’m vaguely recalling ancient Rome, I think, here, where for some the protections under law that slaves had plus the duty masters had towards their slaves was enough for some people to choose bondage. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of history can say more. But, that aside - it’s not definitional. Definitions aside; it seems to me like it would be rather a massive economic boost for a company to be able to hire a “consent-slave”. I mean, we already have interns working for nothing more than experience which might be potentially valued. I see no reason not to think there would be some who’d sign up for horrifying conditions that would only be allowed in Libertopia; wouldn’t that give big savings for some companies, enough to make it a worthwhile offer for them to make? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/339 "2014-04-18T21:50:20Z")
Inevitably I _have_ now found some online dictionaries which do include “without consent” as part of a definition. But it is still only as one possible basis for defining “slave”, not a necessary one, even in those. Perhaps more importantly, they all so far back up a definition of “slave” which would include **Bone’s** libertarian-rule consenting adults. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/340 "2014-04-18T21:57:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Let’s take your version of how things would work out. We adopt a libertarian system of government, and laws against racial and gender discrimination are removed. For the most part, society doesn’t change too much in regards to race relations. Some outliers take the opportunity to discriminate, but they’re fairly rare. \*Maybe \*one or two towns effectively become “sundown” towns. The total number of people whose lives are seriously disrupted is less than a thousand. Which, we all agree, is very unfortunate for them, and the people who fired/evicted/whatever them are gigantic dickheads. But in the long term, it’s for the best, because by removing those laws, we have achieved and/or avoided \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ . > > You get to fill in the blank. We have achieved (or at least moved closer) to a society where we get to live as free men, enjoying our natural rights (IMO, all of which are some form of the right to be left alone). Even the giant dickheads. That’s a quick response, of course, and just my take. I reject the notion of any “right” that must be actively accommodated by someone else. That’s self-contradictory. The idea of the “right” to eat at someone’s restaurant is ridiculous to me. I might be convinced there’s a need for a public policy that prohibits forms of discrimination–perhaps it’s a compromise required for society to run smoothly–but it won’t be because of someone’s “right” to eat at someone else’s restaurant. The owner of the restaurant? In Libertopia it is certainly his right to serve only those he’d prefer to. It’s his right to be left alone to make his own his own decisions, so long as those decisions don’t actively initiate a harm to someone else minding his own business. The fact that this makes some would-be patrons unhappy is not relevant, and no right has been violated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118.md?page=18)