Libertarian Topic of the Week 1: Civil Rights

[BrightNShiny]

@John_Mace

I was going to answer your question, but not after reading that last bit. If you already “know” what I think, then there is no reason for me to explain it to you.

Sure, you were going to answer the question. Uh-huh. If you have to add a bunch of stuff to the hypothetical in order to answer the question, then ya, it’s pretty clear what you think.

[John_Mace]

@iiandyiiii

I think you’re getting too pedantic – they both have the right to access to life-giving care – that is, access to voluntarily donated organs, and access to any individual’s organ who wants to personally donate to them in particular. No one has the right to a non-voluntarily donated organ, of course – so an organ that’s meant specifically for one person cannot be given to someone else… then it’s an ‘involuntary donation’.

They have the right to non-voluntary medical examinations? Not seeing the difference.

Which is why I think this is an area where the state needs to step in and provide life saving services, if necessary, to people who are unable to obtain them otherwise. Besides, would you want to be treated by a doctor who hated you and your race?

[Czarcasm]

@John_Mace

I was going to answer your question, but not after reading that last bit. If you already “know” what I think, then there is no reason for me to explain it to you.

Could you perhaps answer it for the benefit of those in this thread that didn’t add that last little bit?

[BrightNShiny]

@WillFarnaby

The point I am making is that you are being a bit weird about this. Libertarians believe there should be courts. (Some even believe there would be better courts in the absence of the state). A judge would decide in a libertarian society if a trespass was committed. He would take things such as the nature of the establishment, cultural norms, law built up over the centuries, etc. You say entering the unlocked bar wouldn’t be a trespass, but that isn’t even strictly true. If you entered during open hours, no trespass, closed hours, trespass. You would state your case to the judge ("the lights were on, it was 12 o’clock yadda yadda) and the judge would decide if there was a trespass committed.

At common law, public businesses are clearly not the same as private homes. So, if you are saying that libertarians take the traditional common-law view of property, then you are saying that libertarians would make a distinction between public businesses and private homes. Is that what you are saying? Because then we can stop pretending that public businesses and private homes are the same thing and move on to how public businesses should be treated by the government.

ETA: In my hypothetical, I clearly stated that entry to the bar was during business hours.

[John_Mace]

@Czarcasm

Could you perhaps answer it for the benefit of those in this thread that didn’t add that last little bit?

I’d be glad to. Both the home and the bar are private property. The bar, though, is “open” under certain conditions and not open under others: Normal Business hours (open) “Gone to lunch” (not open), or “We don’t serve your kind” (not open for you). The last is, of course, not my own sentiment, but could be the sentiment of some business owners.

Lacking any signage or other instructions, a person may assume he is welcome. But in the same way that he is NOT welcome during non-business hours, he is NOT welcome if there is signage saying otherwise or if he has been instructed that he’s not welcome by the owner or the owner’s agent. A white person walking into a bar with a “No Whites Allowed” policy is no different than a non-white person walking in after business hours.

Businesses routinely post the hours they are open so people know this. They can also post if they are unwilling to server certain people (just like bars do now for minors).

[BrightNShiny]

@John_Mace

I’d be glad to. Both the home and the bar are private property. The bar, though, is “open” under certain conditions and not open under others: Normal Business hours (open) “Gone to lunch” (not open), or “We don’t serve your kind” (not open for you). The last is, of course, not my own sentiment, but could be the sentiment of some business owners.

Lacking any signage or other instructions, a person may assume he is welcome. But in the same way that he is NOT welcome during non-business hours, he is NOT welcome if there is signage saying otherwise or if he has been instructed that he’s not welcome by the owner or the owner’s agent. A white person walking into a bar with a “No Whites Allowed” policy is no different than a non-white person walking in after business hours.

Businesses routinely post the hours they are open so people know this. They can also post if they are unwilling to server certain people (just like bars do now for minors).

Again, you didn’t actually answer the hypothetical and you introduced a bunch of extraneous information. And again, I clearly stated that entry to the bar was during business hours.

This is a simple question: If I go to a bar during business hours, turn the doorknob and enter, is that by itself a trespass in libertarianism? If I go to my neighbor’s house and turn the doorknob and enter, is that by itself a trespass in libertarianism?

Adding all this extraneous info is ignoring the question.

[John_Mace]

Businesses routinely post the hours they are open so people know this. They can also post if they are unwilling to server certain people (just like bars do now for minors).

ETA: Although in the case of minors, it’s not so much that they don’t want to, but that they cannot legally serve minors. Perhaps a “No shirt, no service” sign would be more analogous.

[BrightNShiny]

@John_Mace

Businesses routinely post the hours they are open so people know this. They can also post if they are unwilling to server certain people (just like bars do now for minors).

ETA: Although in the case of minors, it’s not so much that they don’t want to, but that they cannot legally serve minors. Perhaps a “No shirt, no service” sign would be more analogous.

Again, a complete refusal to actually answer the question. And why are you still talking about business hours, when the hypothetical clearly indicates that the entry into the bar is during business hours?

[John_Mace]

Czarcasm: Let me know if I answered the question to your satisfaction or if you need me to elaborate.

[John_Mace]

nm

[Trinopus]

@BrightNShiny

. . . you don’t actually think public businesses are the same as private homes, but you are unwilling to admit that.

@Robert163

So, you’d prefer to return to 1950, for the sake of political idealism. nice.

Jeez. If this is how liberals debate, I belong to the wrong faction.

For whatever it may be worth, I disagree with the libertarian interpretation of commerce as personal private property, but I think these exaggerations and distortions and straw-manners are very poorly contrived. No one has to “admit” something they disagree with, and there’s no way John Mace wants to “return to 1950.”

(Although, of course, knowing how history turns out, one could make a fortune in investments. But, then, there’s the Korean War to get through. Yuck. Not a good plan.)

[BrightNShiny]

@Trinopus

Jeez. If this is how liberals debate, I belong to the wrong faction.

For whatever it may be worth, I disagree with the libertarian interpretation of commerce as personal private property, but I think these exaggerations and distortions and straw-manners are very poorly contrived. No one has to “admit” something they disagree with, and there’s no way John Mace wants to “return to 1950.”

(Although, of course, knowing how history turns out, one could make a fortune in investments. But, then, there’s the Korean War to get through. Yuck. Not a good plan.)

Yeah, liberals debate so badly. I tried to get an answer for what the libertarian rule is with regards to trespass, and all I’ve gotten are evasions.

ETA: In reading over John Mace’s responses, it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t think that private homes and public businesses are the same thing. This is why he’s forced to talk about things like signage for public businesses, but doesn’t have to talk about them for private homes. Because he knows that public businesses have different rules then private homes, even in his own worldview.

[John_Mace]

I also think a dog is not a cat, but that both are pets. I’m crazy like that.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Trinopus

Jeez. If this is how liberals debate, I belong to the wrong faction.

For whatever it may be worth, I disagree with the libertarian interpretation of commerce as personal private property, but I think these exaggerations and distortions and straw-manners are very poorly contrived. No one has to “admit” something they disagree with, and there’s no way John Mace wants to “return to 1950.”

To be totally fair, **John Mace **has already made it clear how much he finds people assuming his positions for him to be not conducive to discussion, so it’s probably not that good an idea to just state that.

That is a fairly depressing non-argument attack on him, though.

[John_Mace]

@Trinopus

For whatever it may be worth, I disagree with the libertarian interpretation of commerce as personal private property, but I think these exaggerations and distortions and straw-manners are very poorly contrived. No one has to “admit” something they disagree with, and there’s no way John Mace wants to “return to 1950.”

Government enforced segregation is no bueno.

And within the scope of this discussion there is no relevant distinction between a private home and a private business. IMO.

[iiandyiiii]

@John_Mace

They have the right to non-voluntary medical examinations? Not seeing the difference.

Which is why I think this is an area where the state needs to step in and provide life saving services, if necessary, to people who are unable to obtain them otherwise. Besides, would you want to be treated by a doctor who hated you and your race?

Huh? I have no idea what you’re talking about with examinations.

[John_Mace]

@iiandyiiii

Huh? I have no idea what you’re talking about with examinations.

Call it medical care, then. If I am a doctor, and I don’t want to treat Italians, then the government is forcing specific labor from me by making me treat Italians. It’s, IMO, no different than the draft (which will be the topic of another thread. )

[BrightNShiny]

@John_Mace

I also think a dog is not a cat, but that both are pets. I’m crazy like that.

So, you’re not actually going to answer the hypothetical? Ok, then.

[Bone]

@BrightNShiny

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.

I’m not John, but I can answer. Let’s see, the only question mark I see is the part I bolded. As a small L libertarian, and we are discussing the libertarian ideal situation, I only agree with part of it. The first premise I do not agree with - that entering your neighbors house through an unlocked door is trespassing. I don’t believe there is enough in your example to determine if this is trespassing. It could be unlawful entry, but generally with trespassing you have to have evidence that the rightful owner doesn’t want you there.

The second premise I agree with - that entering a bar during business hours is not trespassing. It only rises to trespassing if the owner asks you to leave and you do not. I say the owner can ask you to leave for whatever reason, or no reason. People disagreeing are fine with this, except for certain protected classes. I don’t support the idea of protected classes. Is that pretty clear now?

What do I win?

[BrightNShiny]

@Revenant_Threshold

To be totally fair, **John Mace **has already made it clear how much he finds people assuming his positions for him to be not conducive to discussion, so it’s probably not that good an idea to just state that.

That is a fairly depressing non-argument attack on him, though.

Ok, I’ll withdraw the assumption. But at this point, I don’t see anything in a libertarian world view that treats private homes the same as public businesses. What I see are people giving me examples of rules that apply only to public businesses.

And it’s not a non-argument. The whole point of the hypothetical is to get at the philosophical underpinnings of the system being proposed.