I’m sorry, but your use of the present tense led me to believe that you were referring to America today in the post I responded to. Now that that’s been cleared up, carry on. In America today, businesses are in fact open to the public, no?
:rolleyes: You can’t possibly have asked that. There are a lot of differences between your house and your restaurant, the most important being that your house is not a place of public commercial business unless you are a pimp/madam.
If you open a business, you agree to the general social contract – this would ultimately become the case in your Libertopia, because it would have to: you cannot bank social stability on arbitrariness, so either Libertopia must design itself to be stable or expect itself to fail.
The underlying premise is this: if I run the gas station in West Podunk, BFistan, I am realistically not at liberty to turn away customers on a whim or prejudice. Because, you see, there lies a hundred miles of dry scrub in any direction to the next gas station, the people I reject very well could meet their maker with an empty tank out there in the vast nothing. I find it difficult to imagine that the sparse legal code of Libertopia would be so callous as to tolerate me ushering people on to the sweet hereafter just because they make me cranky or whatever.
So, if the gas station in West Podunk is constrained from discrimination by dint of its solitude, how then can the law be so arbitrary as to discriminate between that and any other business? Even in Libertopia, freedom still must needs have reasonable limits or it will quickly be replaced by something sustainable.
Well, the answer to that is Just Move. That always seems to be the answer: Just Move. It’s the discriminated-against’s burden to react, so as not to interfere with the market’s workings.
I’m not sure why you think Try2B Comprehensive is begging the question. He clearly is pointing out that your business is a place of public accommodation while your home is not. That’s an important distinction when it comes to discrimination. As Simplicio has pointed out, a broad denial of service by businesses to a class of people is a form of oppression. Denying that same class of people access to private homes isn’t. Their lives can go on as usual.
Most people assume that these prejudices always go in favor of white males but I strongly disagree. There isn’t any such thing as universal privilege that applies to all circumstances. Even today, there are whole franchise businesses that have nothing but female members (think women’s only gyms and yoga studios among many others). Try walking into a Curves location as a male and say you would like to join. You will get kicked out instantly in almost all states. There are already other businesses that discriminate based on money, looks, sex, age and whatever else they feel like that night (think high end nightclubs in places like Manhattan and Las Vegas).
The egalitarian model that some are suggesting sounds fine until you realize that we don’t even have it today and almost all of you claiming to support it in this thread do not in any pure way. My position is that if you wanted an all black, female bar, I see nothing wrong with that. The vast majority of businesses would not discriminate based on race or sex because they value money above all else like all businesses do. If you have that and are not to much of a pain in the ass to deal with, there is almost no risk of anyone being turned away even without outside controls.
We can’t determine who’s “objectively” right - it’s a difference of opinions and that’s subjective.
But you can probably guess what my suggestion will be for determining whose policy we should use: I’d put it to a vote.
We could quibble over the specific details but I agree this is essentially what I’m saying.
We have ample history where people were and are denied service because of their race or religion or some other arbitrary criteria. All you are doing is hand-waving away real-world discrimination issues.
If you’re okay with discrimination in public businesses, so be it. But trying to pretend discrimination isn’t an issue is the epitome of privilege.
And this is why I specifically have been talking about race. Because it’s the clearest case. I don’t think anyone can offer examples of situations where race is a legitimate factor in turning away a customer.
But I will concede the issue gets murkier when you’re talking about gender. While I think there should generally be gender equality, I’m willing to concede they may be some situations where men and women may legitimately be treated differently. It’s a complicated enough issue that it deserves a separate discussion if we’re going to consider it.
However, I disagree with your argument that financial self-interest would trump discrimination. Our history has provided too much evidence to the contrary for that to be believable.
It’s only a place of “public accommodation” because our government has defined it to be so. Another government can easily define it not to be. And since we are not discussing how things are in the US today, we are not obliged to accept definitions put forth in existing legislation. Therefore, yes… it is Begging the Question.
No wonder libertarians have such a difficult time attracting minorities.
As far as I can tell, they have trouble attracting anyone. They are like ex-alcoholics or evangelicals, they go on and on and on about how much better their particular perspective is, after a while, people exposed to them get tired of hearing about it. Works kind of like aversion therapy.
You’re choosing a strange point to make a stand on. Has there ever been any government you’re aware of that’s declared that if you open a business, you must also open your personal residence to the public? I can’t think of any. So it appears most governments have recognized a distinction between places of business and personal residences.
So how about we just agree that the government should not force homeowners to open their homes to everyone. Being as nobody has suggested otherwise, I think it’s a principle we can all agree one. And then we can get back to the previous topic of whether business owners can turn away customers based on race.
Where has anyone in this thread proclaimed “how much better their perspective is”?
And that just about sums up my beef with libertarianism in 9 words - “It is a good thing independent of the results”. Noooooo. Literally all that matters in a moral system and all that should matter is result. I cannot fathom supporting being good for the sake of fulfilling an arbitrary moral system if the goal of that moral system is not the maximum well-being of all humans and that is not intrinsically built into the system’s definition of what being “moral” means. Or am I wrong to want to derive politics from morality?
Case in point…
This is one reason why I hold up the German Grundgesetz as a high standard in legal practice. Because it doesn’t hold property rights up as the most important thing. It holds Menschwürde - human dignity - up as the single highest good. I mean, let’s detach ourselves from ideals here for a moment. In practical terms, the choice presented here, John Mace, is between a bigot’s right to deny service to someone who, without that service, will die, and a person’s right to life-saving services. In strict terms, no, there’s no explicit right that person holds towards those services. In realistic terms, what’s better for humanity?
And I would definitely say that in this case, the reason why service is being denied does matter somewhat (although I cannot think of a good reason where this ER would be justified in denying service to someone who is about to die otherwise beyond something which would be equally life-threatening to those involved). If it’s simply “I don’t like you”, then there is no circumstance under which that should be good enough to justify letting someone die like that.
Has there ever been a rebuttal that so totally ignored the argument? I said:
Is it your contention that every government that has ever existed used the same definition?
Actually, the first I heard of libertarianism was in a college course. I actually raised my hand and asked the professor if people seriously believed all this. I was that stunned. My poor liberal-raised brain just exploded. 
Is there anything wrong with that definition? How would you define it?
No, what you said was:
And this:
So you seemed to be suggesting that there were different governments which have different laws about public accommodations. And that laws for public businesses might be applied to private homes. My rebuttal was addressing points you raised.
Are we really going to play these games again? Are we going to have to fight our way through nitpicking and strawmen to keep the discussion on topic? We were talking about rules for businesses so why suddenly pretend we were proposing rules for private homes? If we’re talking about letting black people eat at a restaurant why suddenly pretend we’re claiming men should be allowed to go into a women’s locker room?