Lots of people are happy to pay a premium for exclusivity.
To give a painfully obvious example, many of the businesses of the Jim Crow South who didn’t serve black people made the point that “if I let niggers sleep/eat/buy clothes here then I’ll lose all my white customers”.
Hell, there were clothing stores in the South that up until the late 70s would let their black customers know that if they wanted to try out the suits they had to buy them because the white customers would refuse to wear clothes that had been worn by blacks.
I hope Miller doesn’t take this the wrong way, but just as many Southern whites used to have all sorts of delusional theories about how blacks were filthy and carried all sorts of disease, lots of people have such theories about gays(not as much as during the height of the AIDS crisis but it’s still there) and they’d be happy to go much of their lives without a reminder that such disgusting creatures as the soddomites exist.
Hell, to this day plenty of night clubs freely take measures to understand they don’t have too many black people come in to make sure they don’t scare off all the white people, though they’re obviously quite discreet.
Right at the damn beginning, promoting a view without advocating its utility. THAT sentence is the essence of the mind of every debate minded Libertarian.
Or employment. Sure, it’s easy enough if the guy who owns the local diner doesn’t like black people. But what if it’s a middle manager at MicroSoft? If my boss is harassing me at work for being gay, state anti-discrimination laws are a big club I can wave to make HR do something about it. If those laws don’t exist, what leverage do I have with my employer to address my concerns?
Keep in mind that, as I write this, it’s been almost a year and a half since I’ve been employed, so suggestions of “Just go get another job!” will not be taken seriously.
This is the way the word is used in the context of this thread and in the context of the libertarian ideal.
No it’s not. You were never free to eat in the restaurant just as I am not free to play in the NBA. Refusal of service in either example does not curtail anyone’s freedom because it never existed in the first place.
You can make whatever choices you want - just as others can do the same. Libertarians will say that nearly all interaction between individuals should be voluntary. At any time either party can choose not to associate with one another and as a result no one’s liberty has been curtailed. Without agreeing with it, do you understand this concept?
It’s not a blind spot. It’s a recognition that all government is force. An individual has no means to compel another to act a certain way, there is no initiation of force involved. When government demands you act in a certain way, non-compliance is met with men with guns who will imprison or kill you. Those are vastly different.
It’s an example to illustrate a point. Was it lost on you?
Everyone comes out ahead with respect to greater individual liberty. Maximizing individual liberty is a goal in and of itself. Whether or not a specific person, Miller in this case, is better off, depends on circumstances. On balance, I think in general the world would be better off. That’s likely because I place such a high value on individual liberty. Others who do not have the same values would feel differently obviously.
So, I gotta get some work done this week, so I don’t think I’ll be in this thread much.
I do have a nitpick, although it probably doesn’t matter for the arguments here. I don’t want to get into a full treatise on California civil rights law (because it’s a bit complex), but the layman’s rule of thumb (when you are not dealing with explicitly protected categories such as race or sexual orientation) is that public businesses cannot discriminate against an arbitrary grouping of people unless the discrimination is necessary to carry out their business purpose. So, in general, in CA, you wouldn’t be able to discriminate against someone with red hair, unless you could show that it’s necessary to carry out your valid business purpose. That’s a quick layman’s version, and if someone wants to go into more detail and all the exceptions to the rule I’ve laid out, feel free. But off the top of my head, I can’t think of a type of business where it would be legal to discriminate against red-haired people in CA. ETA: And, no, discriminating against red-haired people would not be considered a valid business purpose in-and-of-itself.
This is such a fantastic paragraph and really gets at the heart of it. Unregulated free markets see The Bengal Famine as a win, and apparently when business wins everyone wins.
Short answer: contrast libertarianism against a ‘philosophy’ grounded in the deepest possible insight. Note the inadequacies of libertarianism, but with compassion. Remember, these are your neighbors.
You shouldn’t take it on its word. You can see it for yourself. I think a close enough examination of the issue will reveal the truth of my claims on this matter. Consider chapter 13:
I can’t imagine any Libertarian agreeing with ‘don’t see the self as self’. And that’s their problem right there. Their whole philosophy is intractably rooted in the self, and again, if you really explore the matter, there is far … far more territory to see away from there.
This is an epistemological point. An individual only has to look at enough of the facts in enough light and the picture will be clear. This isn’t a faith kind of thing.
Let’s put it the way it actually happens: Stratification with no movement.
The tide of change for racial relations has matched the tide of change for homosexual relations. At first, no one supported it, but the idea was heavily promoted through media, education, and government. 30-50 years later, newer, stronger, faster persons emerged from their chrysalis and the population is then split into five major view points: Hard Against, Leaning Against, Neutral/Passive, Leaning For, and Hard For the expansion of rights to include those previously not included.
Now, how long would it take without the lobbying of the population over a long term trend?
Well, if we look at the best example we have: Between the founding of the US and the civil war, even those vocally outspoken against Slavery in the north were relatively few. The rest of the populace of the North tended to fall into the “Lean Against/Neutral/Lean For” camps, but it wasn’t with urgency as it didn’t dramatically affect their daily lives. It wasn’t until the civil war that the anti-Slavery/anti-Racism bent became a direct government mandate. And even with that mandate, the South was quite decisively discriminatory against blacks for another hundred or so years and it took extensive popular and government action to nail down the southern racism. (And, by the by, we can still find examples of racism abounding in areas of the US.)
Now, had we let this happen in Laissez-faire-esque fashion, how long would it have taken? The whites in power would have had no financial pressure or motive to move from “Blacks Not Allowed” to “Welcome All” because the blacks had no money to start out with. They would have remained an underclass and wouldn’t have had any financial pressure to bring to bear to open their way for a long, long time.
One of the fundamental needs of a populace from it’s government is to ensure that people are treated equally and fairly. Not just in how it handles itself but in how, at the very least, the major players are barred from being unfair, also. We as a society need and should love legislation like the EOE and similar rules.
I don’t want blacks, asians, whites, handicapped, gays, youngsters, oldies, grey aliens, or random college hipsters to be treated differently simply because they are travelling through a town that doesn’t happen to cotton to their particular race, color, religion, creed, lifestyle, or otherwise. That it continues to happen, today, at the low to moderate levels it does should be regarded as a travesty and not as an infringement of freedom.
Economically? I thought this was an issue of freedom not making money.
Anyway, that was the sense that I meant when I discussed who would come out ahead. I didn’t consider who would make more money. I was talking about who would be freer.
So if anti-discrimination laws were repealed, the only people who come out ahead are the people who want to discriminate.
IMO, exactly the opposite. It’s sad that it has to be enforced by law against people who would rather not participate, but that’s what the rule of law is all about.
The technical legal term is “public accomodation,” but it’s only a doctrine of law. You would be right to say that it is begging the question to argue that this doctrine is right because it’s the current state of law, or that it’s the current state of law because it’s right.
I hold that it’s right because it best serves the needs of the people. Like speed limits or certain other infringements on individual liberty, the absence of such a regulation would be harmful to us all.
Meanwhile, FWIW, I accept the private property exemption for such things as private clubs, and, most certainly, churches. There are still a few private golf courses that exclude women. I hold this to be abominable…and perfectly legal. I would oppose any measures to integrate them by legislation.
That’s a valid argument. Law enforcement costs money. So I agree we have to weigh the costs of enforcing a law against the benefits we hope to achieve by the law being enforced.
In my opinion, this is a case where the benefits (reduced discrimination) are worth the cost.
Well, I agree in part with what you’ve said. I’d agree with the part where you said “Freedom means the ability to control your own actions and property without outside interference from others”. That’s a pretty reasonable definition of freedom.
But it’s a definition that supports my position more than yours. If a restaurant owner can ban me from his business then my ability to control my actions is now subject to his outside control. I’ve lost my freedom.
And I realize that you added more to it. But I feel that the part I quoted is a reasonable definition I can agree with. The part where you say “your actions fall within your sphere of control” does not fit what I think the common definition of freedom is. It seems more like wiggle room you added so you can deny freedom while claiming what you’re denying isn’t really freedom.
So I guess, taking your definition in its entirety, I feel you’re defending something but what you’re defending is not what I would call freedom.
Yes, but this isn’t a thread set up for the exclusive use of libertarians. You can’t define a word and then say everyone else, libertarian and non-libertarian, must use your definition. I have as much freedom to offer my definition of freedom here as you do to offer yours.
You have the freedom to play in the NBA if you have the skills to play. But that wasn’t always the case. But that wasn’t always the case. There was a time when black people weren’t allowed to play in the NBA just like they weren’t allowed to play in professional baseball or football.
And I don’t accept your argument that no freedom exists to be denied. There are plenty of people eating in this hypothetical restaurant. So apparently they’re free to eat there. So the thing that those white people have that the black people don’t have? That’s the freedom that you’re arguing doesn’t exist.
What happens if I walk into that restaurant after being told not to enter? I’m guessing I’ll be arrested. So I guess the men with guns will show up in your scenario as well. They’ll just be arresting a different person than they would in my scenario.
And you said “no initiation of force”. Okay, where was the initiation of force when I walked into the restaurant without permission? I didn’t punch the owner in the nose. Perhaps in your system, the law defines trespassing as a kind of “force”. Would it make you happier if the law in my system defined discrimination of a kind of “force”? Then the police in both of our systems are responding to a use of force. Both are pretty arbitrary. Your law defines one thing as force. My law defines a different thing as force.
No, I got it. But I pointed out how your example doesn’t work. So your point remains unillustrated.
I think my system is the one that has greater individual liberty. As I said, the goal of a utilitarian system is the give freedom to the maximum number of people.
Your system, on the other hand, seems to be saying some people deserve to have individual liberty more than other people do - even if they’re fewer in number. The people in that small group may think it’s a better system because their personal liberty has increased. But the system overall has less liberty.
One can explain a philosophy without advocating that philosophy, no? Is there something inherently wrong with that? I’m not a Christian, but I was raised one, and have a considerable knowledge of Christianity. Should I not to try and explain it when the opportunity arises?
My expectation is that I will be presenting a series of issues from the Libertarian standpoint. There are times when I will agree with that standpoint, and there are times when I will not. I will be explicit when I am in agreement and when I am not. If that’s a crime, then I am guilty.
N.B. There’s a lot of snark in this thread. Going forward, I will probably ignore that type of snark. In this thread, I hope to establish why. And like I said, if anyone feels this is a problem, the BBQ Pit is wide open.
Why would you assume you have the right to go to this guy’s business? Why do you assume that’s an inherent part of freedom, that you can enter his property without his consent, simply because it is a public business? I mean, what if he banned you for being really disgusting, and driving away other customers (like that scene from The Meaning of Life, except you don’t order the entire menu twice every time you visit)?
I don’t know about “some libertarian theorists”, but I would never posit that the free market will provide any solution other than given people what they want. There are certainly forces that will pull the market in the direction of non-discrimination, but if your goal is to mandate non-discrimination, then your best bet is to elicit the government to promote that goal. My goal is NOT to mandate that (even though I would prefer it), so I wouldn’t call on the government to to do it.
I will just point out that we have never had a time in the US when discrimination was allowed in the private sphere, but NOT allowed in the public (ie, government) sphere. When government sanctioned discrimination exists, it should be no surprise that discrimination in the private sector is common.
I remember in 2004 more than a few people suggesting that if airlines where given the opportunity to advertise that they refused to serve Arabs or Muslims they’d do really well financially.
Complete agreement. I, too, participate in religious threads, although I have no religion. Sometimes it’s valid to say, “I don’t believe this.” Other times, it’s valid to say, “No, Nestorians believed X, not Y.” One can discuss matters within layers of subjunctive acceptance.
Perfectly fair. You aren’t guilty. There are lots of philosophies and other viewpoints we want to know more about, without necessarily endorsing or accepting.
And…agreed. The snark isn’t helping. It’s detrimental to all viewpoints. I have enough of a scientific background to value both The Truth and the integrity of the methods we use to try to find it. I don’t like bad arguments, even if they happen to be in support of my views.
If a straw-man attack is the best we can do…then we’ve already lost.
That’s the compromise. He can exclude you for being boorish, but he can’t exclude you on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin, etc. We have set certain arbitrary boundaries upon the shopkeeper’s ability to regulate his own business.
It came about because of dire need. If certain places in the U.S. hadn’t gone to the extremes of whites-only lunch counters, the law wouldn’t have been needed. If shopkeepers suddenly start refusing service, on a large scale, to people whose names begin with the letter “S” then legislative relief (or court intervention) might be necessary.
It’s a truism that rights are limited by certain responsibilities. When rights are abused, they become endangered. This makes a lot of us very uncomfortable, especially First Amendment absolutists. (Also Second Amendment absolutists: they know that gun rights are imperiled by idiots who go on shooting rampages.)
We’re enough of a democracy to have legal recourse against people who are abusive in the exercise of their rights.
I’m not saying it’s a right. I’m saying it’s a freedom. And it is.
“Freedom means the ability to control your own actions and property without outside interference from others” - obviously choosing which restaurant you’re going to eat in is an action. So if you can choose where you eat, you have freedom of restaurant choice.
Of course, there are other freedoms. And the restaurant owner might want to have the freedom to pick which customers he lets into his restaurant. If a person wants to eat in a restaurant and the owner doesn’t want him to eat there, their freedoms can’t co-exist. That means you have to pick out who gets the freedom and who doesn’t.
All systems have to do that - even libertarianism. But libertarianism often falls into denial about it. When it picks which freedom it supports, it then redefines the other freedom it didn’t support. It declares that wasn’t really a freedom and then says “See? I never deny any freedom. That thing I just denied wasn’t a freedom at all.”