Nice deflection. I was broad-brushing glibertarians with that comment, not specifically addressing the content of the thread. Please reframe your complaint so that it makes sense in context.
Nemo, I think the problem with definitions is a little different, namely that defining a business that is open to the general public as private property on par with a private domicile is something which apparently exists in libertarianism, but doesn’t really make sense to you or me in our political philosophy. Am I correct in thinking that that’s the problem? If so, I think this is another thing that I won’t really be able to get around. I feel that there is a fundamental difference between a private business which is open to the general public, and a private domicile which is not. (And a private club/buyer’s association, which is open to select bits of the general public.)
Seems fair.
Bad. I have little faith in the rationality of people in general, and the market. Libertarianism always strikes me as one of those philosophies which says, “Things like this would really work well, if people agreed to it.” Sure, but people aren’t going to agree to it, or at least, show no signs of doing so. In theory, I can see how it would be attractive, but in practice I can’t see it working out.
Yes, and there’s also such institutions that could do the opposite. Assuming Libertopian goverment is fine with supporting particular private sector institutions based on equality, it’s possible it could push society along in that way. I’m not sure if that wouldn’t invalidate the base idea, though.
Ok, John Mace…
Let’s say I go next door to my neighbor’s house and turn the doorknob. It’s unlocked, so I enter his house. This, by itself, would be considered trespassing in most US jurisdictions. Now, let’s say I go to the bar down the street during business hours and turn the doorknob. It’s unlocked, so I enter the bar. This, by itself would not be considered trespassing.
As a libertarian, do you agree with this? Or do you think these situations should be treated identically (either both are trespassing or both or not trespassing). Because if you don’t think they should be treated identically, then you don’t actually think public businesses are the same as private homes.
Responding to the OP point 2: It is bad. It’s bad because, historically, whenever business owners could turn away people based on race/religion/etc, there were entire communities in which black people (or other minorities) could not get basic services.
This is an issue of competing rights – no one has the right to be served at any particular restaurant, but (IMO) everyone has the right to have equal access to food, lodging, health services, etc., in any community in which those are available. So a business owner’s right to choose who he/she serves is trumped if he/she wants to turn away people based on race/religion/etc. by their right to equal access to basic services.
If these protections did not exist, I strongly believe that we would see a return of sundown towns. Like-minded bigots would come together and dominate certain towns and communities for the express purpose of creating a whites-only area. It would not take very many bigots – just a few tenths of a percentage of Americans, probably, to organize and come together and have the numbers and economic clout to create new minority-free communities, purely through the libertarian principle of voluntary association.
I see this as totally unacceptable, to the point that it requires government action to prevent.
I’m not John, but how I interpreted what he was saying and with what I agree with, was that a business is only a public accommodation because it is currently the law that it is such. The law could be changed to not construe businesses as public accommodations, in similar fashion that one’s house is not a public accommodation. This is not to say that anyone has suggested that one’s house be treated as a public accommodation.
Here’s where I differ thus far. Emergency rooms are not like other businesses. Health care - specifically emergency care - does not behave like a typical market. There are several factors that set this apart, various inelasticities and externalities. As such, the government has a role to play and I would be fine with a set of rules such that emergency room care must be provided to all comers.
This is a fair point. A belief system that does not promise any special benefit to a particular group will not be as attractive as one that promises special treatment. I would think that Asians in CA would appreciate not being discriminated against in public college admissions and would likely be a minority group that would support this type of belief system. Succeed or fail on your merits.
This type of result oriented belief system leads to vastly inconsistent practices depending on the circumstances. I find the fluid, baseless system able to rationalize any behavior with no core principal that is unchangeable. It is truly an ‘ends justify the means’ way and while I accept that many adhere to this, you are correct in that it is squarely opposed to the libertarian ideal.
I think this is a critical difference. Many other belief systems claim to know what’s best for the individual, better than that person themselves. I find that to be the height of arrogance.
I would be very interested in hearing from non-US posters here on how things work in your country. Does every country in the developed world have something like Title II of the Cilvil Rights Act of 1964??
OK. From my OP (emphasis added):
For the emergency-room problem, to John Mace – doesn’t (or shouldn’t) everyone have the same right to life-saving care? How can everyone be equal under the law if some are unable to get life-saving care strictly due to race/religion/etc.?
I certainly admit that the Emergency Room argument is more compelling than the Post Card and T-Shirt Store argument. But can we put that aside for the moment and talk about non-life threatening situations? I’d like the address the life threatening situations in another thread-- one where I will disagree with the "Libertarian Idea"l and suggest that this is where the government needs to step in and provide those services.
But I would disagree with your statement if we broaden it beyond the emergency room. Suppose I need a kidney transplant and you offer to give me one of yours. What about Carols over here who also needs a kidney transplant, but no one is stepping up to give him one because he’s Hispanic? Doesn’t he have the right to the same life-saving care that I’m getting?
How does the law treat this currently? I was not under the impression that someone could donate an organ with the restriction that it go to an individual of a certain race/religion/etc., but anyone can donate with the express purpose of going to a particular individual if they are compatible.
So (IMO) everyone has the same right to donated kidneys, if they are donated for general use (or whatever) for anyone in need, but everyone also has the right to donate their kidneys to someone in particular if they wish. These two things aren’t in conflict. There’s only a conflict, perhaps, if someone wants to donate for ‘only white people’, or something. And perhaps even this should be legal, since adding a kidney to the registry, even if it only gets to go to a white person, will also free up other kidneys for non-white people.
Not really. See here. That isn’t exactly a moral system though, it kind of mocks morality as inadequate, but still:
The trouble with expecting results from morality, according to this source, is that when it doesn’t work or nobody listens, the ‘moral’ man rolls up his sleeves and uses force to get results. Forcing things in general goes against the grain of this ‘system of thought’, of which ethics/morality is just a sort of subset. I’ve strayed from libertarianism though; this is more like what is missing from libertarianism, especially in practice.
The libertarian/lockean view would be that the slaves should have assumed ownership of their respective enslavers’ property.
Of course. This is the only way a truly equal society can possibly come about. This is the way progress has been made. For this reason, Jackie Robinson is worth one thousand times more than LBJ. White liberals will not like that statement, but it’s true.
I don’t think pitting one against the other is the answer-both Jackie Robinson(and all the others that dared to defy the social norms) and LBJ were equally responsible.
The thing is many libertarians also agree with the beliefs. They think that racial discrimination is wrong. They just don’t act on that belief. Most of us feel that if you believe something is wrong, you should act on that belief.
You don’t just think “crime is bad” - you set up a legal system that puts criminals in prison. You don’t just think “disease is bad” - you set up a health care system that cures diseases. And we extend that principle. When we think ignorance is bad, we set up a public school system. When we think poverty is bad, we set up a public assistance system. When we think racial discrimination is bad, we have the legal system oppose it.
As a base stealing threat, sure. I could probably throw out LBJ. As crucial to the Civil Rights Act, not so much. Jackie Robinson didn’t eliminate the need for blacks to buy guidebooks of where they could sleep or eat in the south, LBJ did.
Still waiting on a response to this. Also, should the bar owner be able to use deadly force on the bar trespasser if he waltzes right in without permission?
In bringing social equality and changing attitudes about race JR was far more meaningful. LBJ is viewed today as a clown except by true believers. Jackie Robinson will never be forgotten.
We aren’t obliged to accept their definitions, no. But we don’t have to pretend that the law and the reasons behind it don’t exist either. Do you now understand why the distinction between a home and a business is made?