Jonas: I still think a distinction has to be made between different types of property. I still think we need to note a difference between a house and a Starbucks...a condo and a hospital...a driveway and a major highway. I will have to think about this a lot. gplauche, I don't consider myself anything...I'm still trying to sort out all my beliefs and ideas.
I still think a distinction has to be made between different types of property. I still think we need to note a difference between a house and a Starbucks...a condo and a hospital...a driveway and a major highway.
I will have to think about this a lot.
gplauche, I don't consider myself anything...I'm still trying to sort out all my beliefs and ideas.
I am not sure if this is the forum for you, if this is what you believe.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Jonas: If people own their businesses, then they own their businesses. If you or anyone else has the right to decide what they may and may not do with their businesses (beyond using it for coercion or fraud), then they do not own their businesses. But you are saying yourself that there are limits to what a person can do with their business. You are saying a person, who owns a business, cannot use that business for coercion or fraud. Why not? If I own my business, then I own it and can use it for whatever purpose I want. But the fact is, I can't. And if you are going to put restrictions on how a person uses their business, then adding one more restriction against discrimination isn't that horrid.
If people own their businesses, then they own their businesses. If you or anyone else has the right to decide what they may and may not do with their businesses (beyond using it for coercion or fraud), then they do not own their businesses.
But you are saying yourself that there are limits to what a person can do with their business. You are saying a person, who owns a business, cannot use that business for coercion or fraud. Why not? If I own my business, then I own it and can use it for whatever purpose I want.
But the fact is, I can't. And if you are going to put restrictions on how a person uses their business, then adding one more restriction against discrimination isn't that horrid.
Yes, individuals shouldn't violate the rights of others (coercion, fraud, etc.). However, no one has a right to be hired by me. Do you disagree?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
mr_anonymous: Jonas: I still think a distinction has to be made between different types of property. I still think we need to note a difference between a house and a Starbucks...a condo and a hospital...a driveway and a major highway. I will have to think about this a lot. gplauche, I don't consider myself anything...I'm still trying to sort out all my beliefs and ideas. I am not sure if this is the forum for you, if this is what you believe.
Let's not scare him away!
Jonas: I just want to make sure I get this right. You all would have no problem with a business having a sign on its front door that said "No Blacks, Mexicans, or Asians Allowed"?
I just want to make sure I get this right. You all would have no problem with a business having a sign on its front door that said "No Blacks, Mexicans, or Asians Allowed"?
Freedom of association.
I control who I let into my home and I control who I let into my business. I don't need to have a good reason, its a right of ownership.
Not choosing to let you into my home is not a crime, I have not violated your selfownership or your property. Not letting you into my shop is also not a crime, for the same reason. You coming into my shop if I dont want you to is a crime, no different than breaking into my house.
Typical NR: you don't have any rights unless you own property.
As far as the segregation thing, you have to admit that the 1964 Civil rights act did do alot to end racism in this country; whether you agree with the methods or not, it certainly was very successful. Is that not an end worth having?
Don't worry, I won't be scared away that easily! ;)
Jon, I again state that I think a distinction needs to be made between your house and your business.
Maybe the distinction needs to be narrowed even further, to a difference between businesses that serve the "common good" like hospitals/clinics/food stores and those that provide more luxury items. I don't know...I know that once you start making exceptions you enter a slippery slope.
I guess the main conflict I have with this issue is the same conflict I have when you use libertarianism to explain environmental and animal rights issues. The libertarian who would say "if I want to keep blacks out of my hospital, then I will" is the same person who would say "if I want to dump tons of unregulated CO2 into the air, I will" and "if I want to torture the cattle before I kill them to make my burgers, then I will". I think there has to be some over-arching moral system here beyond "if I own it I can do what I want with it".
Jonas:Don't worry, I won't be scared away that easily! ;)
Good. I apologize.
Don't apologize! Good, hefty debate is what we need to refine our beliefs. I've posted a bit before on the gold standard, so I know how a good debate can help one flesh out ones beliefs and ideals.
Jonas: Jon, I again state that I think a distinction needs to be made between your house and your business. Maybe the distinction needs to be narrowed even further, to a difference between businesses that serve the "common good" like hospitals/clinics/food stores and those that provide more luxury items. I don't know...I know that once you start making exceptions you enter a slippery slope.
I don't see any basis for doing so that would be non-arbitrary or avoid infringing on individual liberty (i.e., freedom from initiatory force).
Jonas:I guess the main conflict I have with this issue is the same conflict I have when you use libertarianism to explain environmental and animal rights issues. The libertarian who would say "if I want to keep blacks out of my hospital, then I will" is the same person who would say "if I want to dump tons of unregulated CO2 into the air, I will"
Not necessarily. If sufficient proof, by scientific standards and legal standards, can be provided, showing a direct and unmistakable link between greenhouse gas emissions and harmful global warming then there might be a case for bringing a class action suit or some other civil trial against major polluters. I'm not sure this would be feasible in a free market anarchist society though. And I'm not convinced that the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory sufficiently meets these standards of proof.
Jonas:and "if I want to torture the cattle before I kill them to make my burgers, then I will".
As I mentioned before, there are libertarian-compatible (i.e., non-violent) ways of dealing with morally repugnant but non-rights-violating business practices. Boycotts are just one example.
Jonas:I think there has to be some over-arching moral system here beyond "if I own it I can do what I want with it".
There is. You're only looking at the legal side of it. Libertarianism doesn't say that anything you have a right to do, you ought to do. It is perfectly compatible with libertarianism to believe that X behavior is wrong but that people have a right to do it (meaning that you ought not use force to prevent them). I believe it is immoral to threaten or initiate force.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct InstructorBuena Vista University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
Jonas, do you believe that individuals have rights?
Jonas:I guess the main conflict I have with this issue is the same conflict I have when you use libertarianism to explain environmental and animal rights issues. The libertarian who would say "if I want to keep blacks out of my hospital, then I will" is the same person who would say "if I want to dump tons of unregulated CO2 into the air, I will" and "if I want to torture the cattle before I kill them to make my burgers, then I will". I think there has to be some over-arching moral system here beyond "if I own it I can do what I want with it".
Environmental issues are amazingly simple to explain. If I own land, you can't pollute it. If you own land, you can pollute it. But, ultimately, who wants to pollute their own land? We have pollution because the government lets people pollute other people's land.
Animal rights are too metaphysical for me. I'd say you can only own an animal if you are using it, if you hold an animal just to torture you are not an owner and any other person can confiscate it from you.
Law and morality must be separate concepts. A legal system is only a libertarian legal system as long as it enforces ownership. Violence is only justified in defense from violence and the legal system is institutionalized violence. Once you accept that violence can be used to improve people you open the door for all the greatest crimes humanity has ever committed.
Miksirhc, in a sense, yes... given that the body too is owned, in a way of speaking.
That doesn't make sense. Of course they have the right to make widgets and not sell them. But that doesn't give them the right to sell to only certain subgroups. You either sell to nobody, or everybody.
Why? Should you not have the right to decide to whom you sell your goods or services? Firms often target specific groups of consumers as it is.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
miksirhc: Typical NR: you don't have any rights unless you own property.
Rubbish. Your person is your prime property, all other types of property derive from self ownership.
What does NR mean?
miksirhc:As far as the segregation thing, you have to admit that the 1964 Civil rights act did do alot to end racism in this country;
Racism is a system of beliefs. You can't outlaw ideas.
miksirhc:whether you agree with the methods or not, it certainly was very successful.
Successful at creating racial tensions? Sure
miksirhc:Is that not an end worth having?
I could steal all your property and give it to the poor. Would that not be an end worth having?
Jonas: kingmonkey, everything you said makes a lot of sense. I completely understand the idea of private property, and that it is sacrosanct, and that the idea of anyone forcing me to use my private property in a way I don't like should be prevented. I still think a distinction has to be made between different types of property. I still think we need to note a difference between a house and a Starbucks...a condo and a hospital...a driveway and a major highway.
kingmonkey, everything you said makes a lot of sense. I completely understand the idea of private property, and that it is sacrosanct, and that the idea of anyone forcing me to use my private property in a way I don't like should be prevented.
One of the things you are going to first have to overcome is the prevalent idea that any place where people attend to shop or drink coffee or receive treatment is a "public" place. Our wonderful leaders have told us that Wal-Mart is a public place, Starbucks is a public place, hospitals are public places, etc., etc. The truth of the matter is that none of these places are "public" since they are all owned by private individuals. Yes, some like Starbucks and Wal-Mart might be owned by hundreds of thousands of individuals (as stock holders) but they are nonetheless owned by private persons. The world isn't composed of "public" people but of private persons -- all different, all individuals.
Every person is different. We all think differently, act differently, have different attitudes and experiences and deal with life differently then anyone else based off of those experiences. The mere fact that we can come together to share certain ideas that we might hold in common doesn't make us any less different than the other people around us. As such, since we are all individuals, we are all private persons who have the absolute right to decided what shall be done with our bodies, minds and energy. Once you understand that there is no "public", there is no "society" but only individuals then you can start to see what we are talking about.
Starbucks is no more public than my home is. I can fling open the doors and say "Welcome everyone! Please come in!" I could allow thousands of people every day to just come into my home if I so felt like. But I have the absolute right to one day shut the doors and lock them and declare that no one shall ever be allowed to enter my home again. That is my right because that is my property. Starbucks is nothing more than a private company which has said "We have coffee for sale and we want you to buy it." They allow thousands of people every day to come into their stores but they have the absolute right to one day shut the doors and lock them and refuse service to anyone ever again. Why? Because Starbucks doesn't serve some incomprehensible and vague "public" but private individuals who enter a private place of business.
Every place of business has the legal right to refuse anyone. If I go to a hospital that requires insurance they have the legal right to deny me treatment. Is that morally correct? I would say it isn't but that doesn't mean I can force them to treat me. For doing that would violate their property rights. They have no obligation to treat me. They might have a moral obligation but certainly not a legal one. If I saw you drowning in a lake I might have the moral obligation to try to save you but certainly not the legal one. Why should I put myself in danger for your errors? Legally I cannot be held responsible for not helping you. Morally I am a coward, selfish and unworthy of life myself. Yet no one can take my life for not helping you nor can they punish me.
Morality and legality are difficult to separate some times. I've been trying for weeks now to formulate a good argument against Rothbard's insistence that mothers have the legal right to abort their unwanted babies. Morally I find this view repulsive and disgusting. I don't think anyone has the right to kill an unborn child like that. But that's my morals talking. I must, however, admit that it really is legal for a mother to perform this unholy act.
Anyway, once you recognize that you cannot make a distinction between different types of private property and once you understand that there is no public but only individuals -- private persons -- you'll be able to fully comprehend libertarian philosophy. Even the morally repulsive idea of excluding someone just because of their race will make sense to you from a legal perspective.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
Fred Furash:True public property also can't exist...it's impossible, or at least I don't see it happening. Somebody has to own it.
You're basically right. While it is possible for a commodity to be sufficiently abundant to be used by large communities without conflict (e.g. atmosphere), it seems improper to categorize such things as "public property".
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
miksirhc: As far as the segregation thing, you have to admit that the 1964 Civil rights act did do alot to end racism in this country; whether you agree with the methods or not, it certainly was very successful. Is that not an end worth having?
The 1964 Civil Rights act hasn't solved anything. Most people forget that it was the State with the Jim Crow Laws that forced blacks to ride at the back of the bus and drink from different water fountains. Segregation was put in place by the State. The Civil Rights Act might have gotten rid of segregation but it hasn't put an end to racism.
But racism is dying anyway. In the 1960's a great portion of young people realized that the black guy and the white guy are no different from each other. During the '60's blacks and whites joined together and began tearing down the race walls that had been up for so long. And it continues to this day. Growing up my mother always told me that blacks were no different than I was. Because she told me that I still have that idea in my head that "blacks aren't differnt from me." It is still rascism but a far lesser degree of it. My nieces, however, don't see race. Whereas I still to this day identify people as "that black guy" or "that Mexican" or "my black friend" my nieces just say their names or say "that guy over there." Rascism isn't done away with because the State told us all to play together and be nice. Rascism goes away when one generation tells the next that we are all the same and then their kids just stop seeing race all together. My mother always told us that rascism is taught. We have chosen not to tell our kids about different races but about different people and others do the same. Once again, there isn't a problem we face that the free market can't solve.
Jonas: The only problem I see is that [discrimination] could become common practice...prevalent in the culture.
I simply fail to see the problem in your objections. Even overlooking the fact that entrepreneurs profit from not discriminating, it is not immoral in any sense.
Jonas:It is fine for everyone to say "Well, I wouldn't give them my business." That's great if it's one muffin shop in an entire city. But what happens if it's not just one muffin shop, but all the bus companies?
Then obviously some people will not have access to such transportation, end of story. After all, before internal combustion and steam engines people had to walk in order to get where they wanted to go (or they could invest in a horse and buggy, which is what I'd recommend to the hypothetical discriminees).
Jonas:Or if it's the garbage company that refuses to pickup trash from a home owned by an asian.
Similarly, he'll have to make do and find a way to dispose of his garbage himself. Again, there is nothing wrong with this.
Jonas:Or if it's the two hospitals in a area, and the black family of an injured 6-year-old has to rush their bleeding son 60 miles to a hospital that allows blacks?
Then the worst thing that can happen is the child dies. Believe it or not, the occurance of someone dying a lonely, miserable death is completely natural and is not a crime against nature or against any person (unless of course it was murder in which case the perpetrator is responsible, not the hospital).
Jonas:There is no rational or logical reason why someone would want to prevent women from entering their store
Of course there is! If the store owner is a misogynist, then it is perfectly rational and logical for him to forbid women from his store.
(I hope I've clarified things for you).
Solomon: Fred Furash:True public property also can't exist...it's impossible, or at least I don't see it happening. Somebody has to own it. You're basically right. While it is possible for a commodity to be sufficiently abundant to be used by large communities without conflict (e.g. atmosphere), it seems improper to categorize such things as "public property".
That depends on what you mean by 'public property'. Clearly it can't be unowned land, because that wouldn't be property at all. And I think it is a twisting of the meaning of 'public' that it has become almost synoymous with state-controlled property.
Here are some interesting articles on the subject:
Roderick Long, "In Defense of Public Space"
Roderick Long, "A Plea for Public Property"
Randall Holcombe, "Common Property in Anarcho-Capitalism"
Solomon: Jonas: The only problem I see is that [discrimination] could become common practice...prevalent in the culture. I simply fail to see the problem in your objections. Even overlooking the fact that entrepreneurs profit from not discriminating, it is not immoral in any sense.
Well, clearly there is disagreement among libertarians on that. I haven't taken a survey, but I imagine most libertarians would see as immoral this sort of discrimination over superficial things like race, sex, etc. based on prejudice. But not not everything that is immoral is a rights-violation.
gplauche: Well, clearly there is disagreement among libertarians on that. I haven't taken a survey, but I imagine most libertarians would see as immoral this sort of discrimination over superficial things like race, sex, etc. based on prejudice. But not not everything that is immoral is a rights-violation.
The charge of racism is a PC term. Being racist is by definition "bad" because the term deliberately includes only "bad" forms of racism.
It is racism to dislike another race, but not racism to prefer your own. It is racism to exclude blacks, but not racism to include blacks.
This is the PC world where equality before the law is more racist than racial quotas.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap