For me that’s the same issue as any other service or business, so it’s the same as whether a restauranteur can turn away Jews (no, they can’t/shouldn’t be able to).
Yes, it’s clear. You have different rules for public businesses and private homes, and you don’t treat them the same.
As it happens I was referring to Trinopus’ assumption in the first part, and Robert163’s non-argument in the second part, but I can see how I didn’t make that clear. Apologies. For what it’s worth, I don’t personally see where you’re going with your arguments, but I think they seem like simple enough questions that John Mace did seem to evade for quite a while until finally he decided he’d bite the bullet and call out the question, in a likewise somewhat evasive way. Which seems unlike him.
Of course not, no one suggested that they are the same in all respects. There is overlap in how they are treated for sure, but there are also differences. John and I and others have said in the libertarian ideal, they would be similar in that an owner would be able to restrict access for any reason. In other ways they’d be different - The assumption would be that the business is where commerce is commenced, maybe zoning differences, etc.
Real world example - CA requires a permit to carry a concealed weapon. You need no permit to do so in your own home. You know where else you don’t need a permit? In your business. Overlap, but not the same in all respects, right?
Well, that’s not how I read John Mace’s earlier posts in this thread, and he could have just clarified early on that he did indeed think they were different, if that is indeed his position. So, he’ll have to be the one to clarify what his actual position is.
He did in his earlier posts on the subject, post #26:
In other words, regarding the issue of who is allowed in, the home is treated similar to the business. This statement doesn’t mean that in all aspects a home and a business are the same. If you interpret that way you’ve assumed facts not in evidence.
No worries.
Where I was going is that dragging private homes into this debate without any sort of clarification is confusing and doesn’t actually tell us anything, if we all actually agree that private homes and public businesses should have different rules applied to them (which I still don’t know if we all agree on that).
The question is really what rules are we going to apply to public businesses. A number of people in this thread have made utilitarian arguments against various forms of discrimination. For example, my ER hypothetical is essentially a utilitarian argument: by severely restricting who the ER can deny service too, we reduce the chance of an unnecessary death.
If libertarians reject that sort of utilitarian argument, then my question is do libertarians accept any sort of utilitarian argument? And how do they distinguish between utilitarian arguments that they accept and that they reject?
Or, if we bring it back to the bar example, how do libertarians determine which rules apply to public businesses and which don’t? Because this is really what the debate is about. I can make utilitarian arguments all day long for any number of regulations on public businesses, but if libertarians don’t accept utilitarian arguments at all (which I can’t tell yet), then that would just be talking past them.
And that’s not how I read that. And when I first posted my hypothetical, I did indicate that I was seeking clarification about whether or not he thought businesses and homes were the same. If that was really his position, he could have just stated right then in his first answer that he didn’t think they should be treated the same in all respects, and my trespass example was one of those areas.
That’s seriously fucked up. I suppose it’s also just like a draft to force you to cook a hamburger to serve to a black guy. Oh the horrors of living in a society where people of all kinds are entitled to medical treatment, housing, eating in restaurants, etc. When, oh when, are we going to wise up and start living in this libertarian utopia?
Trespass isn’t a very good example. They would be the same or very similar with regard to trespass.
No, they wouldn’t, and you’ve been given numerous examples of how trespass is treated differently between public business and private homes in this thread. ETA: At least in current US law. Now, if you want to claim that trespass issues are treated exactly the same in libertopia, then we’re back at my hypothetical.
Perhaps you can point to a statute defining how you are using the term trespass, both civil and criminal. In all cases I’ve looked at, the person that is accused of trespass must be asked to leave. In your example of entering an unlocked home and a business during business hours, this did not happen, hence no trespass.
Missed the edit window:
I could have this wrong, but I was under the impression that entering an unlocked residence would be unlawful entry, not necessarily trespass, though it could be both.
In any event, a home and business are different in some respects, and the same in others. Ability to have unrestricted control of who has access is a way they would be the same in the libertarian ideal.
A home has a white list; no one may enter unless they’re explicitly invited, otherwise it’s trespass. A business has a black list; everyone may enter unless they’re told otherwise, be it a sign or personal instruction. That’s the difference, it’s not that hard.
Since they’re clearly different, there’s no real problem handling them differently in the law. We can say, for instance, that your blacklist can not be based on certain protected classes. No reason to muddy this up.
So, you’re saying if the owner is not at his private home at the time of entry, and therefore cannot ask the person to leave, that a trespass has not occurred?
Ok, I see the confusion. California lumps “unlawful entry” and “trespass” together under the same section, and somewhat uses the term interchangeably. Let’s not get hung up on what it’s called, but rather as to whether it should be prohibited by law – which is what I’m trying to find out.
Ok. Why should business have unrestricted control in this manner?
I think trespass as a civil and criminal matter has specific elements that must be satisfied to qualify and that your example was not sufficient to establish these elements in all cases and jurisdictions, hence it was a poor example.
No, it wasn’t a poor example, because it pointed out very clearly that we treat businesses differently then we treat private homes. And the fact pattern I gave was enough to establish illegality, whether or not you want to call it trespass or unlawful entry.
Okay.
This was stipulated in the OP:
That’s a statement of what the policy should be. It’s not an argument that explains why the policy should be that way. I’m not a libertarian, and since I don’t agree with that policy, what is the argument in favor of it?
Additionally, you’ve indicated that you might be okay with some restrictions on businesses. How do you distinguish between what restrictions you are okay with and which ones you aren’t?