# Libertarianism and Moralism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010 "2012-02-25T23:32:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/121 "2012-02-28T17:17:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s no more an “absurd extreme” than claiming anyone can waltz into your restaraunt if you don’t want them to. It’s only in very recent years that it was considered normal to require that. Actually even in the Jim Crow South anyone could waltz into a restaurant - so long as they were white. Or do you think restaurant owners carefully screened patrons? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/122 "2012-02-28T17:23:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Actually even in the Jim Crow South anyone could waltz into a restaurant - so long as they were white. Or do you think restaurant owners carefully screened patrons? “if you don’t want them to” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/123 "2012-02-28T17:45:01Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > When you claim that you have the “freedom” to eat anywhere you choose, that means that you claim the right to enter someone else’s property (restaurant) against their wishes and the right to take their property (food) against their wishes (compensation notwithstanding). When you claim that a property owner has the right to do whatever he wants on his own property, that means that you claim a restaurant owner can put poison in the food he serves if he wants to. See what it looks like when you make absurd claims? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/124 "2012-02-28T17:50:53Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Your formulation of the issueis completely absurd. You think that the different freedoms involved should be balanced, whichi suppose is fine as far as that goes, butthen you make up a freedom so you havesomething to balance. There’s no principled wattle say that there is a freedom to eat where one chooses and not say there is a freedom to camp where one chooses, and you haven’t even attempted to distinguish the two, you’ve just hand-waved it away. So this freedom to turn away customers in your restaurant that you’re defending. Is that in the original Constitution or was it added in one of the Amendments? I’d like to look it up because I don’t recall restaurant customers being mentioned in the Constitution. But I know it must be there because you wouldn’t make up a freedom or even interpret something that’s written in the Constitution. So the freedom for restaurant owners to turn away customers must be written explicitly into the Constitution. Because otherwise it’s no different then the freedom to eat in a restaurant of your choice - something derived from the written text. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/125 "2012-02-28T18:56:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > When you claim that a property owner has the right to do whatever he wants on his own property, that means that you claim a restaurant owner can put poison in the food he serves if he wants to. He certainly can. What he can’t do is feed that poisoned food to you without informing you of it first. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/126 "2012-02-28T19:02:31Z")
Sure he can, because he knows you can’t afford to pay for an autopsy, and definitely don’t have the cash to spring for a police investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/127 "2012-02-28T19:03:17Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Sure he can, because he knows you can’t afford to pay for an autopsy, and definitely don’t have the cash to spring for a police investigation. Just say “Somalia”. It’s shorter. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/128 "2012-02-28T19:07:51Z")
Does Somalia also lack government services? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/129 "2012-02-28T19:13:08Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “if you don’t want them to” 😕 Restaurant owners have plenty of rights of regulation of clients. No shoes, no shirt, no service: perfectly legal. Dress code, requiring a jacket for dinner: perfectly legal. Skin color code: not legal. We’ve decided as a society that while people can be racist in their hearts, and can write racist things, they can’t impose their racism on other people. I’m old enough to remember what the Southern governors said about why they wanted states rights, before it had to be dressed up as libertarianism. As far as the restaurant owner goes, do you think a poisoner shouldn’t be tried, convicted, and killed, even if he did tell his patrons? Was it in big enough letters? Is for all food? Did it get considered as a joke? I’ll reconsider my opposition to the death penalty to terminate that shit with extreme prejudice. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/130 "2012-02-28T19:19:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As far as the restaurant owner goes, do you think a poisoner shouldn’t be tried, convicted, and killed, even if he did tell his patrons? The hypothetical is absurd, but if you insist - if I tell you the food is poisoned, and you still eat it, it’s your problem, not mine. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/131 "2012-02-28T19:54:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > … if I tell you the food is poisoned, and you still eat it, it’s your problem, not mine. And this is why extreme libertarianism is so so misguided. The customer might be stupid, unable to understand English, think you’re joking, vaguely suicidal but without the strength to kill himself unassisted, etc. But you are eager to blame the victim, while happily pocketing $2 for the dinner that poisoned him. The hypothetical here may be absurdly far-fetched, but the same principle applies in many many more realistic situations, and libertarians are happy to give a similar answer then. It’s ironic that this thread begins with a libertarian invoking morality. Libertarians have no moral code beyond “I’ve got mine” and “Caveat emptor, sucker.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/132 "2012-02-28T20:00:20Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > What he can’t do is feed that poisoned food to you without informing you of it first. What? You’re saying the restaurant owner - a man who owns property - can’t do what he like on his own property? You Nazi. There’s absolutely no difference between saying this and saying you can walk into the guy’s home and rape his family. I guess what I’ve been saying all along is true: libertarians want to rape children. And I, for one, am not going to sit here and try to have a reasonable conversation with somebody who thinks it’s okay to rape children. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/133 "2012-02-28T20:55:14Z")
Christ little memo, it’s almost like you are being willfully obtuse here. Go read up on libertarianism if you are interested in it, I’m done feeding you. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/134 "2012-02-28T20:57:38Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The hypothetical is absurd, but if you insist - if I tell you the food is poisoned, and you still eat it, it’s your problem, not mine. so, if I point a gun at you and tell you I’m going to shoot if you take a step closer, and you do, and I do, I’m off the hook? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/135 "2012-02-28T20:57:58Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So this freedom to turn away customers in your restaurant that you’re defending. Something you’ve chosen to ignore is that the customer also has _property_ in the form of cash. The customer is then free to exchange it for a meal if he or she so wishes. The CRA was designed to force a restaurant to to provide a service, but did nothing to force customers to demand said service. A black guy could open a restaurant in an area full of racists and subsequently go out of business. Would you like to see the CRA amended to force customers to patronize certain businesses? Or do you believe that the individual customer should be free to choose what restaurant he/she goes to, and even free to not go to a restaurant? It is discrimination if a restaurant owner says “whites only.” It is also discrimination if a customer refuses to go to a restaurant owned by an African American. Why are you so insistent that the government only get involved with half of the equation? Right now the Million Moms are trying to boycott JC Penny because they hired a lesbian as their spokeswomen, isn’t that just as discriminatory as if JC Penny refused to hire lesbians? What about the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Blacks refused to ride the bus and crippled the system. Was that discriminatory? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/136 "2012-02-28T20:59:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What? You’re saying the restaurant owner - a man who owns property - can’t do what he like on his own property? > > You Nazi. There’s absolutely no difference between saying this and saying you can walk into the guy’s home and rape his family. > > I guess what I’ve been saying all along is true: libertarians want to rape children. And I, for one, am not going to sit here and try to have a reasonable conversation with somebody who thinks it’s okay to rape children. That’s unfair. Libertarians say you have to buy the children first. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/137 "2012-02-28T21:02:48Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Something you’ve chosen to ignore is that the customer also has _property_ in the form of cash. The customer is then free to exchange it for a meal if he or she so wishes. > > The CRA was designed to force a restaurant to to provide a service, but did nothing to force customers to demand said service. We’ve already mentioned public accommodations. [Definition in the Civil Rights Act.](http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm) ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/138 "2012-02-28T21:05:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > When you claim that a property owner has the right to do whatever he wants on his own property, that means that you claim a restaurant owner can put poison in the food he serves if he wants to. > > See what it looks like when you make absurd claims? Although you were intentionally trying to be antagonistic, you take another step towards the issue of freedom of choice. Should an individual be allowed to purchase and consume poison? We as a society have no problem with cigarettes that have long been known to contain both poisons and carcinogens. Should you be allowed to order a runny egg? Rare steak? Raw fish? What about mercury levels? There are plenty of poisons available for sale, conveniently labeled with a big skull and crossbones. Should the government prohibit their sale? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/139 "2012-02-28T21:07:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We’ve already mentioned public accommodations. [Definition in the Civil Rights Act.](http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm) So can I charge everyone who refuses to enter my restaurant with discrimination? ETA I’m a Canadian, so anyone that refuses to buy my product is discriminating against me because of my nationality. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010/140 "2012-02-28T21:37:35Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > So can I charge everyone who refuses to enter my restaurant with discrimination? This is the problem I tried to illustrate earlier. Obviously, there is a conflict of interest here. Businesses want to do their own thing. Customers want to do their own thing. These are (at least sometimes but in my guess quite often) mutually exclusive, unless somehow all customers are also business owners in which case you could at least see some kind of MAD principle come about (maybe—but we’re talking about people who would hold a nation’s economy hostage in order to get taxpayer money to cover their fuckups). But we all know how American libertarians intend society to be organized, so we already know not everyone will be business owners, and wealth will tend to flow in one direction. Then the situation is no longer parallel, and discriminating against businesses is not the same as businesses discriminating against their customers. But that’s not the fault of silly liberals being hypocrites, you wanted society organized in a way which was already fundamentally unbalanced. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism-and-moralism/614010.md?page=8)