Could you articulate for me what the principle is that supports the position that the government shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of “race, color, religion, gender, what have you,” and also what “what have you” is?
And heck, if you feel like tackling it, I’m not sure what you mean by the government shouldn’t discriminate. What’s the threshold for government action? Separate but equal OK? Restrictive covenants? Private schools that use state funds? You brought up the Civil Rights Act in the OP, but it’s not clear how much of that act is actually within the parameters of what you’re going for (notwithstanding the qualifications in the OP).
And to take an example from the other side: I’m fairly uncomfortable by recent efforts to outlaw private discrimination against gays and lesbians, simply because I don’t think such discrimination has risen to the level where its a systematic form of oppression that’s worth over-riding property rights. Establishing Protected Classes is a pretty intrusive measure, and while I think its worth it in cases like the 1960’s mistreatment of black people, it’s something that should be reserved for cases where it’s very clear that its necessary. I don’t think thats been the case with gays and lesbians (though as openly gay couples become more common, it may be in the future).
I actually disagree. I don’t think being free to eat at the restaurant of your choice is particularly important. If some random bigot wants to turn away black people, he’s an asshole, but I think he has the right to do so.
But when it crosses the line from being some random bigot to a widespread movement to use personal property to turn keep a minority as a permanent underclass, unable to participate in large swaths of commerce or community activity, then I think stopping that is worth stomping on property rights. Obviously that line isn’t always clear-cut, and there will always be debatable cases, but in the case mentioned by the OP (the US in 1964), there really is no debate what side of the line things were on.
And if the resulting law is a little too broad, and some random bigots get caught by it as well, I think that the trade-off is worth it.
You don’t have the freedom to trespass on private property. Is there a “competing freedom” that you can’t be a guest in my house if I don’t want you to be one? What is the difference between my house and my restaurant?
Your restaurant is a business, open to the public. Your home is not.
Anyway, these rules would lead not just to race discrimination, but religious discrimination as well. Plenty of religious groups in this country would love to be able to refuse service, rent, employment and so on to anybody of the wrong religion. Add billionaires to the mix (always the key point in any discussion of libertarianism) and you will see refugees driven out of communities all over the country. Maybe they’re “liberals”, maybe they just don’t want to join your religion- there are lots of permutations. But the bottom line is that coercion to join religions will go through the roof, along with the freedom (of billionaires) to seriously punish those who don’t go along.
Libertarianism sounds like freedom to some people, but it results in inappropriate pressure to strip people of their freedom of conscience- something with an obviously spotty history. This lousy philosophy is nothing but an excuse to impose (more of) an aristocracy on (what will used to have been) America.
Let’s look at the type of stuff that was going on in the country prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act:
Some state and many local governments had passed laws requiring private businesses to be segregated.
Even in the absence of legislation, government officials would often resort to extra-legal violence to enforce segregation on private businesses, and the government would turn a blind-eye to this.
Private actors also routinely used extra-legal violence to enforce segregation on private businesses, and the government would turn a blind-eye to this.
Private actors often used social pressure to enforce segregation on private business. Oh, you want to desegregate your store? Well, I guess you won’t be welcome at the local social club any longer.
Private actors routinely engaged in economic collusion and anti-competitive behavior to enforce segregation on private businesses. Oh, you want to desegregate your restaurant? Well, we’ll boycott you. Oh, you don’t care? Well, we’ll go to all the local butchers and tell them to boycott you. Oh, there’s a butcher who won’t stop selling to you? Well, we’ll boycott him and tell all the restaurants to boycott him. In a very small town, this kind of thing would be the death-knell for any business trying to voluntarily desegregate. In short, the market was artificially manipulated to preserve private-sector segregation.
What the Civil Rights Act did was attempt to slice through all of this in one fell swoop. And eventually, it worked very well. So, when people say that private business should be allowed to discriminate, I’m not really inclined to agree with them. Because for centuries, we had a system in the US where private owners were prohibited from desegregating.
Of course, nowadays, we have smart-phones and the internet. I could imagine an app that lists segregated businesses and allows people to use their market power to create desegregated environments. And we have the interstate system and overnight shipping, so who cares if the local butchers decide to boycott your restaurant? But all of those things are that make it much easier for people to use their market power are themselves the result of heavy government intervention in the market. So, either way we’re talking about the government intervening in the market.
My opinion is that a homeowners right to exclude people from his home outweighs somebody else’s right to enter the property. But I also think that a business owner’s right to exclude customers is not as absolute. If you choose to open your property to customers, I don’t think you should have the right to exclude broad categories of customers based on things like race or religion.
I feel there would have to be some standard of proof involved. I’m not going to say a business owner can’t ever bar a black customer (or a white customer) or say the customer has an absolute right to enter. Customers would have to produce some reasonable amount of evidence that the reason they were barred was due to their race or some similar factor.
Let’s say a privately-owned emergency room refuses to treat people because of their race. Do you think that this is something the law should allow or prohibit?
As for begging the question, do you mean my suggestion that there would be rampant religious discrimination under a Libertarian system? Because I can tell you, the motive to act on motives of religious discrimination are out there in the world today, and the law is the only thing holding them back. Libertarian rules would set them loose, I guarantee it.
Well, I can’t say I agree, but I suppose that’s consistent. So, basically libertarians such as yourself have a fundamentally different view of property rights then I do. If your conception of property rights allows an emergency room to turn away someone who’s dying because of their race, I don’t really see your view as one I would be in favor of.
I meant your post #25, in case I was not clear. You claim that a business must be open to to the public because it is open to the public. But, in fact, it is not “open to the public” until the government requires it to be so.
Libertarianism is the ultimate expression of white male privilege. It’s easy to not care if a store refuses to sell birth control to unmarried women - if you’re not an unmarried woman. It’s easy to not care if a bar owner is a bigot - if you’re sure that you won’t be the one targeted. It’s easy to say that you’re personal property rights are the most important thing in the world - if you own most of the property. It’s easy to not carry about minority voting opportunities - when it never crosses your mind that your voting rights could be restricted, too (Didn’t serve in the army? Don’t have a net worth of 5 million dollars? Not related to the right families? Wrong flavor of Christianity? Oh, yeah. It could happen.)
The rest of us in this country don’t have the privilege of assuming that we will be the ones imposing our prejudices on others.