My scenario (explained above) is that of an employer telling an employee to (for example) not serve blacks, when the employee would rather serve blacks. The libertarian position, if I understand correctly, is that this does not count as the employer “forcing” nor hindering the freedom of the employee since the employee can simply find another job.
The first paragraph above establishes that the “force” that the government uses in anti-discrimination laws is not physical, but rather a threat of financial loss, and as such is no greater than the “force” that employers uses in dictating discriminating policies to employees. If one is coercive then so is the other. In the case of limited companies the parallel is even better – what’s at stake (if business owner discriminates and get sued, if employee refuses to discriminate and gets fired) is future income, not current assets. The “leave the country” remark is a parallel to “find another job” and not intended to be snarky.
My point is, just as government has power over businesses because moving to a different coountry poses a significant, sometimes insurmountable barrier, so do businesses have power over their employees because changing jobs poses a significant, sometimes insurmountable, barrier. The former kind of power is used to keep the latter kind of power in check.
I’m surprised that you don’t think nonprofits are relevant because the typical libertarian position is that private charities should play a major role (as opposed to government) in helping those in need. The key difference between a business and nonprofit is in fact ownership. If I donate money to a nonprofit, it is illegal for the director/board of the nonprofit to direct it towards something other than the stated purpose of the nonprofit. They are required to disclose its financial details in order to demonstrate appropriate uses of funds. If the operators of a nonprofit want to dissolve it, they have to distribute the assets to another nonprofit serving a similar mission. Such regulatory requirements allow donors to have confidence when donating and hence the existence of very large nonprofits which can be more efficient due to economy of scale. Are you proposing that none of these rules should exist? That if I donate to an organization for the purpose of helping hungry children then the director/board members would have full ownership of the donated money and can use it to buy houses for themselves like a business owner could?
Sometimes I think the libertarian position can best be summarized as “mine!”. The problem is that ownership/control is not that simple: my body, labor, residence, couch, money, and children are all “mine” to different extents. Likewise, private companies, public companies, nonprofits, and government are very different. In a modern society, instead of just owners we have stakeholders. The “sphere of influence” principle doesn’t work beyond one’s body (or sometimes even within – Libertarians are split on abortion rights) because outside of that there are a lot of overlapping spheres.
This displays a misunderstanding of the positions taken in this thread.
A business is not coercive, is not using force by choosing not to employ or interact with anyone. In the context of this thread and libertarian ideals, nearly all interaction is voluntary. A business has no power nor ability to coerce or force anyone by not employing or interacting with them. This is part of the premises.
On the other hand, all government action is coercive by nature. If one does not comply with the directives, wages are garnished, bank accounts are seized, your movement is restricted, and they can execute you (this covers a broad range of governmental action in response to a broader range of individual action - not just violating anti-discrimination laws).
There is no equivalency between governmental and private action. I’m reminded of this passage from Common Sense:
The entire pamphlet is great reading if you haven’t already, but that above is a great description of some of the points I’ve been trying to make.
Nothing I stated should be construed as thinking non-profits are not relevant. I admire charity as much as the next guy, but that has nothing to do with the business structure of a non-profit. Having general funds, restricted assets, restrictive covenants, qualified donations, or any other type of asset restrictions are not unique to non-profits, though they are probably most common there. All of those things can be achieved in a for-profit business.
The key difference that I am focusing on between a non-profit and a for-profit business is that the former does not have net income - it has retained earnings. For the purposes of the business, this may operate in the same fashion if the owner of the business (or board member for the non-profit) is also the one running the organization. While they are not distributing net income in the form of dividends or returns to shareholders, the board can simply elect to reduce their retained earning by increasing their wages.
The key difference between a non-profit and a for-profit business in the scenario I am describing is that one is subject to income taxes, and a 501(c)(3) and other qualified organizations are not subject to income taxes. This type of tax shelter is what I would eliminate. There is no justification for it other than encouraging or discouraging behavior. The government should not be in the business of encouraging or discouraging behavior. Charity would still exist, restrictive covenants on donations would still exist; these businesses would simply be treated like any other.
The discussion of non-profits are not really germane to civil rights however, so perhaps this will get touched on in a later thread about tax policy or social safety nets.
If that’s what you have surmised from this thread, it’s unfortunate that I haven’t been able to communicate more clearly. Alas this is my best effort so future attempts would probably be unsuccessful as well. Like John, my goal is to inform so discussion is at least based on the actual positions of libertarians rather than the usual strawmans presented. I don’t expect everyone to agree, but I do think understanding is not out of reach.