20
Jun
2011
Discrimination Bask
I am writing something up on the Wal-Mart ruling. I know within the last year or two some libertarians (?) interviewed people in a mall, asking if black restaurant owners should be forced by the government to serve members of the KKK. Most people said no. Can anybody find the link to that video?
Prof. Murphy,
Does the Wal-Mart decision have all that much to do with libertarianism? It’s a simple procedural ruling about the certification requirements for class action lawsuits. It doesn’t change the substance of employment discrimination law. I know the Left has overreacted because the case involves Wal-Mart (shocking, I know), but it doesn’t seem like a great vehicle to talk about how property owners should have the right to discriminate.
Well it is a news hook.
It under property rights and racism on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oknvBclbZMI&feature=player_embedded
Thanks Dan.
Of course, if they had asked “Should a black owner have a right to refuse to serve Koreans?” 95% of the interviewees would have said, “Of course not.”
Yeah, unless one equates all white people with Klansmen the question seems like a non sequitur.
Of course. That’s what makes those interviews so interesting.
Everybody is saying “it’s their restaurant, the owner can refuse anyone he wants”. A couple actually elaborate that if it was public property, he could not reject, but the restaurant is private property.
Yet, if they asked your question, how many would think the same rationale would apply? It would actually be interesting to see the interviewer flip the question around to see how they would react.
I’m not sure what you guys are saying. This doesn’t prove, “Aha! The American public are really Rothbardians.” But it does make people do a double take and then they have to reevaluate their views.
Exactly right. People are forced to reevaluate their views.
AND it’s always good to point out legal cases there the cement-headed lawyers and judges fuss and fuss and obsess about legal process but are clueless regarding basic property/contract rights and constitutional issues.
Hmm… they are stating their views. Where is your evidence they are re-evaluating them? The video makers FRAMED this as “turning around” the issue relevant to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but that is nonsense. The law says there are certain bases for discrimination that a public establishment cannot use; it does not say there are NO bases it can use. You have always been allowed to kick out someone who, say, craps themselves from your restaurant!
Fine. I will admit only to grammatical laziness.
How about, “They might reevaluate their views”.
Or ,”This is an opportunity to get them to reevaluate their views”.
And then there’s, “perhaps they will be open to learn from this that Jim Crow laws were passed by governments to stop the natural tendency of people to interact and trade regardless of race”.
And then there’s the even more extreme, “Perhaps they might be open to thinking about the fact that there are a myriad of non-governmental non-violent sanctions that might be employed against racists and their ilk (and which would cut down on many crazy causes-of-action which only enrich lawyers and judges and make us unnaturally suspicious of people of other races and creeds)”.
Yes, they MIGHT re-evaluate their views. But I see no reason this case OUGHT to make them re-evaluate their views. Legally, discrimination on the basis of race has been banned. I think that is a fine thing. (I assume you don’t, Mr, Roddis, which I understand, but we’re talking about whether or not this case gives people any reason to re-evaluate their views.) Discrimination on the basis of promoting a noxious and violent dogma should be allowed. (Presumably, the black owner does not have a “KKK detector” — the customers in question must be wearing their robes, or declaring their views, or something of the sort, for him to know they are KKK.)
So what is to re-evaluate?
I’m not sure those layfolk would evaluate it that way, since most of them would regard “discrimination against someone because of political views” to be odious as well, perhaps on (yes, dubious) grounds of infringing on free speech.
If someone thought that it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of their political views, then asking about discriminating against Klansmen would be grounds for them reconsidering their views. Why the Klansman hypothetical should make people reconsider their views about racial discrimination is unclear.
Because a kind of racial discrimination is present in the decision to discriminate against that particular political view. (The same restaurant might, e.g., have no problem serving Nation of Islam acolytes or Black Panthers.)
Because a kind of racial discrimination is present in the decision to discriminate against that particular political view.
There’s nothing racist about discriminating against the KKK. I would hope that is something we could all agree on.
The same restaurant might, e.g., have no problem serving Nation of Islam acolytes or Black Panthers.
They might. On the other hand, they might not. How does the fact that a hypothetical restaurant might be okay with serving the Black Panthers but not the KKK mean that “a kind of racial discrimination is present in the decision to discriminate against [the KKK]”?
Wow, that’s a pretty nice set of blinders you’ve managed to put on. It’s inconceivable for you to believe a restaurant might not want to serve the KKK, while it would serve Nation of Islam and Black Panthers, and if it did, it wouldn’t have anything to do with race.
*facepalm*
“How does the fact that a hypothetical restaurant might be okay with serving the Black Panthers but not the KKK mean that a kind of racial discrimination is present ”
Because the both the KKK and the Black Panthers are organizations that discriminate base on reace so selecting one organization to serve over another means the resteraunt owner approves of one type of discrimination but not the other (i.e. blacks against whites) as opposed to whites against blacks).
The resteraunt is itself implicitly racist if it does not reject both parties on the same grounds.
@RS: If he doesn’t understand it by now, I don’t think he’ll ever be able to follow the full chain of logic. Some people are just too … hm, ideological.
It’s inconceivable for you to believe a restaurant might not want to serve the KKK, while it would serve Nation of Islam and Black Panthers, and if it did, it wouldn’t have anything to do with race.
Huh? I said that a restaurant might do this, or it might not. So clearly it is conceivable to me that a restaurant might act that way.
What you seem not to grasp is that just because something might be so doesn’t mean it is so. Suppose that a black guy is refused service at a gas station for not wearing shoes. It might be the case that if a white guy had gone into the station without shoes he would not have been refused service. Does the fact that this might mean that “a kind of racial discrimination is present in the decision to discriminate” against people for not wearing shoes? Obviously not.
Blackadder, you might think it is very clear that discrimination against the KK is NOT racial discrimination. But Silas will “argue” against this seemingly rather obvious point with stunning rejoinder “facepalm.” Therefore, you lose.
@Gene_Callahan: I didn’t say that discrimination against the KKK must be racial discrimination. I said that if someone discriminated against the KKK *and* permitted black supremacist groups, that would be indicate that race is part of their discrimination calculus. Like RS said with different words.
Do you even bother to read an argument before replying to it?
@ BA
“Does the fact that this might mean that “a kind of racial discrimination is present in the decision to discriminate” against people for not wearing shoes?”
If all you are saying is that there “may” be a lack of evidence to determine either way then that is “possible” but I dont see how thats germain to the discussion. If there is a pattern of evidence then there is a pattern of evidence, if not not. One isolated incident certianly does not make a pattern but a consistent series of choices in favor of one over another is evidence of a principle in operation and that would indicate the form of discrimination.
I didn’t say that discrimination against the KKK must be racial discrimination. I said that if someone discriminated against the KKK *and* permitted black supremacist groups, that would be indicate that race is part of their discrimination calculus.
What you said was that “a kind of racial discrimination is present in the decision to discriminate against that particular political view.”
If you meant that discrimination against the KKK involves racial discrimination if it is done for racist reasons, well then, yes, that is true, but it’s hard to see what that has to do with the video Bob was asking about.
It’s not like the people in the video were asked about other racist groups and gave inconsistent answers. For all we know, if you had asked them “should you refuse to serve members of the black equivalent of the KKK?” they would have gotten exactly the same answers.
If you meant that discrimination against the KKK involves racial discrimination if it is done for racist reasons, well then, yes, that is true, but it’s hard to see what that has to do with the video Bob was asking about.
Yes, if you’re a little weak in the abstract thought department.
Ah yes, good ol’ progressivism. Why pretend you are libertarian at all Gene? I guess you might’ve renounced it, not that i pay much attention to your contrarian ramblings.
So, It Has Been Decided that freedom of association simply depends on context. We don’t like certain people associating in a certain way and that’s how it should be! End!
Let us hope the libertarian movement itself does not fall into this abhorrent abyss of considering freedom of association inconvenient baggage to be thrown under the bus for Progressive or modern social approval
Where did he pretend to be libertarian?
Yeah, I noticed that, too. Gene is a self-described former libertarian.
‘And then there’s, “perhaps they will be open to learn from this that Jim Crow laws were passed by governments to stop the natural tendency of people to interact and trade regardless of race”.’
Yes. And then they were repealed by governments. And then governments passed civil rights laws. So what?
Most lynchings were done by private groups of people who assembled voluntarily for the job. What would you say to someone who stated that as a good reason to do away with private, voluntary associations?
Im sure the person getting lynched was not there voluntarily.
“Im sure the person getting lynched was not there voluntarily.”
Is there a point to this remark? Because if there is, it escapes me.
Gene, are you kidding?
A “private voluntary association” of a lynch mob is hardly voluntary to the person being lynched, as in the mob’s alleged right to associate voluntarily does not extend to the person chosen to decorate the end of a rope, therefore the whole affair is not an example of free association as you implied but of unfree forced association since it is presumed that the person so chosen does not actually desire to be hanged.
if there is anything else that I can explain to you please let me know and I will be happy to oblige.
“A “private voluntary association” of a lynch mob is hardly voluntary to the person being lynched, as in the mob’s alleged right to associate voluntarily does not extend to the person chosen to decorate the end of a rope, therefore the whole affair is not an example of free association…”
It is a free association amongst the lynch mob, for an evil purpose. What I was saying was, “Citing a lynch mob would be a dumb argument against private association.” Your response is, “Gene, citing a lynch mob would be a dumb argument against private association!”
Which is why I ask what the point of your repeating what I was saying as if you were disagreeing with me is!
then I misunderstood the context of your post.
Thank you for saying so. A blog comment thread has managed to resolve an issue! Hurray! Hurray!
Re: “So what?”
Problems arise from the failure to respect contractual rights and property rights in people’s things and their own bodies. Like murder. And genocide.
As an attorney who started law school four years after discovering Rothbard, I’m quite aware of what happens when the statist juggernaut of a civil or criminal case begins. I submit that statists who demand this type of solution for “problems” have the burden of proof to show that there really is a problem AND that it cannot be solved by the market AND which can only be solved with their statist solutions. (For the time being, I don’t have a problem with using these functions against real criminals like murderers and thieves etc.…)
But people are way to callous to employ these functions to allegedly solve all problems of living and the nation and society are both dying because of it. And the advocates of statism really don’t want to discuss it or even attempt to demonstrate the efficacy of their theories and they are usually content just to name-call.
I live a block and a half from the border of the City of Detroit. I was born in the city. My parents were born in the city. Am I the only one who sees that the drug war, the compulsory public school system and anti-discrimination laws have resulted in 1.3 million nominally Democrat voters leaving the city for the suburbs while leaving behind 700,000 ne’er-do-wells and where person and property are always at risk?
http://www.marchandmeffre.com/detroit/index.html
“Problems arise from the failure to respect contractual rights and property rights in people’s things and their own bodies.”
Yes, Bob, that is the ONLY reason problems arise.
No, of course there are other problems of living. But slaughter/genocide along with massive statist thefts and pograms are the biggies.
Bob, I agree that genocide and war are terrible problems. I disagree with the idea that getting rid of the State would eliminate either. The people of India and Pakistan did a pretty good job of mass slaughter in 1947 despite their governments working to prevent it.
Ok Gene, then you should be able to tell us why the law discriminates between those who wish to discriminate based on one’s bowel control and those who wish to discriminate based on one’s race/religion/color etc.? Why should the law discriminate against the discriminators? What is the purpose of the law? What is it supposed to accomplish?
Why SHOULDN’T the law discriminate like this? Laws ALWAYS discriminate. For instance, the laws against murder discriminate against murderers, laws against theft against thieves. Why do you think there should be a law that doesn’t discriminate?
As far as to what the discrimination between discrimnators in the Civil Rights Act in particular is supposed to accomplish, are you really claiming you couldn’t tell me? I don’t think those questions are sincere at all.
Ok Gene, then you should be able to tell us why the law discriminates between those who wish to discriminate based on one’s bowel control and those who wish to discriminate based on one’s race/religion/color etc.?
Do you think that it is morally wrong for a restaurant to refuse to serve someone based on their race?
If your answer is yes, then it should not be a mystery why the law would treat refusing to serve someone based on race differently from refusing to serve them because they crapped on your lunchroom counter (I presume that you do not think there is anything morally wrong with the latter kind of discrimination).
You don’t have to agree, of course. You might think that while refusing to serve people based on race is morally wrong, it is the person’s inalienable right to do so, and the law should not interfere with that. But it shouldn’t be hard to figure out why people who do think it should be illegal don’t likewise think it should be illegal to discriminate against the counter crapper.
If your answer is no, and you see no moral difference between refusing to serve someone because they are black and refusing to serve them because they have defecated on your lunch counter, then I really don’t know what else to say.
Blackadder, thank you for having the patience to explain the obvious!
Gene//BA,
Both of you missed the point entirely. I was asking whether it was the purpose of the law/state to force people to act morally.
If you answer “yes” then where does that stop?
If you answer “no” then what is the purpose of the state?
Well, RS, that’s not what you said at first: (you pretended) you were mystified as to what the point of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was. Now you admit you knew perfectly well what the point was: to get people to stop what was perceived as immoral discrimination. Now, whether that is a good idea or not is another question, and it was not the point of anything I’ve said here to argue that point either way. But that there is some basis for which discriminators the law discriminates against is obvious, and you now admit as much. (Even though you think the law is a bad idea.)
“But that there is some basis for which discriminators the law discriminates against is obvious”
No, it’s not obvious. The basis is simply that people want to force other people to be moral and never bothered to ask the question whether force itself is immoral so you have the spectacle of forced morality, which is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen; if one cannot choose then one is neither moral nor immoral but a slave to those who can.
So a murder wannabe cannot choose between moral and immoral, but is a slave to the anti-murder crowd?
Preventing people from acting immorally is not the same as forcing them to act morally.
Both of you missed the point entirely. I was asking whether it was the purpose of the law/state to force people to act morally.
If you answer “yes” then where does that stop?
My views are more or less those of Thomas Aquinas as expressed in the Summa II-I Q. 96 art. 2.
Yes, I think Aquinas pretty much got this right.
Hmm… they are stating their views. Where is your evidence they are re-evaluating them?
The almost impossible to ignore high probability that if asked whether they would support a white business owner refusing to serve a black customer, they would say no?
The law says there are certain bases for discrimination that a public establishment cannot use; it does not say there are NO bases it can use. You have always been allowed to kick out someone who, say, craps themselves from your restaurant!
The question asked did not include the KKK shitting in the restaurant.
“The almost impossible to ignore high probability that if asked whether they would support a white business owner refusing to serve a black customer, they would say no?”
Yes, that is there view as well. How does allowing discrimination against the KKK relate to racial discrimination in a way that would force someone to “re-evaluate their views” if they were OK with one being legal but not the other? I am totally OK with legal discrimination against KKK members, and think legal discrimination against racial groups (in public places) should be outlawed. Asking me this question would not prompt any sort of re-evaluation of these views.
Yes, that is there view as well. How does allowing discrimination against the KKK relate to racial discrimination in a way that would force someone to “re-evaluate their views” if they were OK with one being legal but not the other?
For these people, it would present an opportunity to see how one’s position regarding discrimination is not consistent. On the one hand, one holds the racial discrimination of “No KKK, i.e. white people in weird clothes, are allowed” to not be morally evil, and yet on the other hand one is ostensibly against racial discrimination by supporting one’s position that a white store owner cannot refuse service to a black customer on the basis that racial discrimination is morally evil.
I am totally OK with legal discrimination against KKK members, and think legal discrimination against racial groups (in public places) should be outlawed. Asking me this question would not prompt any sort of re-evaluation of these views.
Your position is therefore contradictory. One the one hand, you argue it is morally permissible for blacks to discriminate against whites on the basis of race, but on the other hand you argue it is morally impermissible for whites to discriminate against blacks on the basis of race.
Bob, I think John Stossel did that on his show. I remember seeing a spot where he was in a mall asking those kind of questions.
The idea these folks are “re-evaluating” their views rests, I think, on the idea that if some forms of discrimination are banned, then all forms must be banned. (Logically? Factually?) But that ain’t so. You have, both pre- and post-1964, been able to discriminate against men not wearing ties, or against people with no shoes, or on many other bases. I think these people were just considering upon which side of the line the case put to them should fall.
No, it rests on the fact that the freedom to associate includes the freedom to disassociate and that when the government takes a side it removes freedom from both.
Yes, in the case of race and your public business, the law says you do NOT have the freedom to disassociate with customers based on race. The question is, why should the fact the law says you do not have THAT freedom somehow imply that, therefore, you can’t have any freedom of association at all?
Look, think of it this way: Many people think heroin should be banned. (I know you disagree, but follow me here.) If I go out in a mall and ask, “Should someone be punished for taking aspirin?” and they say “No,” it does NOT follow that therefore they think heroin should be legal as well. Just like thinking it’s fine to be able to exclude KKK members does NOT mean one also has to think it’s fine to be able to exclude Koreans. Someone COULD think both should be legal, or think both should be illegal, but there is nothing incoherent about thinking one should be legal and the other illegal.
“why should the fact the law says you do not have THAT freedom somehow imply that, therefore, you can’t have any freedom of association at all?”
go back to my question about what the law is attempting to do. its attempting to legislate morality,its trying to force people to choose certain values over others. there is no safe way to do that. once the law enters in favor on one value it necessarily precludes others and all values are at risk because there is no way for the state to decide which values are to be included and which to be excluded. all it has is popular vote, which makes the introduction and/or rejection of slave labor and/or extermination only a matter of degree and not one of principle.
Look at your own examples (asprin vs herion, KKK vs Korean), neither of them are based on any principe, only on what society deems as normal. It is normal and acceptable for people to take asprin, but not heroin. It is normal and acceptable for people to reject the KKK (only not 100 years ago) but not Koreans. What is the differene? Only social norms, a majority vote, a popular poll etc. So then I ask you if you can consider a Nazi concentration camp or a Soviet gulag as acceptable/moral in a society since it was “normal” according to those societies? no? then there must be something else needed to guide and/or prevent these things from occuring and that is the principle the state cannot legislate morality, only protect a persons right to practice it.
Yes, in the case of race and your public business, the law says you do NOT have the freedom to disassociate with customers based on race. The question is, why should the fact the law says you do not have THAT freedom somehow imply that, therefore, you can’t have any freedom of association at all?
Freedom of disassociation IMPLIES the freedom of association. You cannot enforce a law preventing people from disassociating, and then claim that you can’t see how freedom of association is threatened.
Look, think of it this way: Many people think heroin should be banned. (I know you disagree, but follow me here.)
Wait, so you agree? OK, well, if you claim to be able to dictate for others what they can and cannot ingest without necessarily hurting anyone else by ingesting it, then others should be able to claim to dictate to you what food you can and cannot ingest.
If I go out in a mall and ask, “Should someone be punished for taking aspirin?” and they say “No,” it does NOT follow that therefore they think heroin should be legal as well.
What they happen to believe is not the issue here. The issue here is that if they believe people should not be punished for taking aspirin, then they SHOULD also believe that people should not be punished for ingesting other drugs.
Just like thinking it’s fine to be able to exclude KKK members does NOT mean one also has to think it’s fine to be able to exclude Koreans.
To be logically consistent one would in fact have to believe that.
Someone COULD think both should be legal, or think both should be illegal, but there is nothing incoherent about thinking one should be legal and the other illegal.
There is nothing coherent that would justify a black owner refusing to do business with a white person wearing certain clothes but not justifying a white owner refusing to do business with a black person wearing certain clothes.
The question asked in the video did not presume anything about the KKK other than the fact that they were KKK, so you cannot presume anything that would violate that initial assumption, for example taking a dump on the floor, starting a fight, etc.
“Freedom of disassociation IMPLIES the freedom of association. You cannot enforce a law preventing people from disassociating, and then claim that you can’t see how freedom of association is threatened.”
But Major, I explicitly acknowledged that what you said is true! Yes, the freedom of association is curtailed, in the case of racial discrimination in a public business. And I think this is an excellent curtailment.
Then you can’t be supportive of store owners who refuse to serve KKK members.
“Just like thinking it’s fine to be able to exclude KKK members does NOT mean one also has to think it’s fine to be able to exclude Koreans.”
“To be logically consistent one would in fact have to believe that.”
Well no one wouldn’t!
Premise: It is OK to discriminate against groups with obnoxious political views.
Premise: It is NOT OK to discriminate against groups based on race.
Conclusion: It is OK to discriminate against the KKK, but not OK to discriminate against Koreans.
The above argument is certainly “logically consistent.”
One last comment: This is the same argument we keep having on this stuff. You have well-thought out views, and so do I. We could argue at length and not contradict ourselves.
However, the man in the street does not have such a coherent worldview. That’s why I like to ask him, “Why isn’t it theft when the government takes my money against my will on April 15?” You think that is a bogus question, but I think it’s a great question. In fact, it was such language that pushed me to become an anarchist.
By the same token, how would abolitionists have appealed to their colleagues, without showing the obvious sense in which slavery violated other moral principles they held dear? Of course people who grow up with slavery being “natural” don’t at first think that it is kidnapping, but when an abolitionist asks you to explain why, it makes you think. And some people might come out the other end of that process as abolitionists.
The above argument is certainly “logically consistent.”
Only because you ignored the racism inherent in the first premise, because you can’t READ PEOPLE’S MINDS. The only way that a black store owner can refuse service to the KKK is by taking into account their race (white).
Gotta love the collectivist mindset…
For instance, Dan, no one currently has the freedom to associate for the purposes of plotting to blow up my house. I think that is a fine thing. You may not, but the point is, there is nothing inconsistent or illogical about anyone thinking that it is good that bowling leagues are free to associate and good that terrorist cells are NOT free to associate. I’m not trying to get you to agree with me here: perhaps you think this freedom should be absolute. I’m trying to get you to see that there is no “therefore” here: it is a bad argument to say, “Ah, you think it should be legal to discriminate against KKK members? THEREFORE, you must think it should be legal to discriminate against the Irish!” Perhaps both SHOULD be legal, as you think. But the “therefore” in the above statement is invalid: you need a different argument.
Gene,
here you are conflating a persons right to be free of others with a persons desire to deprive others of their rights via blowing up property. no one can have the “right” to infringe on anothers right. each person has the right to do whatever they want to so long as they dont violate the same rights in others. within the sphere of ones rights, the freedom to act is absolute.
No, another argument is not needed. The logic that one uses to justify a black person refusing to do business with a white person wearing certain clothes, and those are the only facts we have, cannot then be totally abandoned when the same business owner is present, but a person of a different race just happens to walk in wearing different clothes.
That is attempting to use different logic for different races, which is nonsensical in a context of individual rights.
Some of the people in the video were saying that they could refuse service because it was their property. That is different than saying they should be able to refuse because that is good discrimination.
They should have asked those same people if a doctor or hospital could discriminate between those who can and cannot pay and see if they get the same response.
Any other answer would betray an “entitlement” mentality that discriminates between those that have in favor of those that need.
RS, you do know that hospitals cannot so discriminate when it comes to emergency services, right?
yes, that was my point. if a person says a business has the right to refuse to serve certain customers then why not a doctor or hospital? to be consistent they must uphold the same right for both.
No, they don’t. Because hospitals are different than most businesses. “Consistency” in justice allows the application of different rules to unlike cases!
thats just a double standard and you know it. justice is about equality before the law not equality of outcomes.
Dan, of course it had to be their property! I can’t kick someone out of a restaurant that’s not mine because they haven’t worn shoes! That does NOT mean that they think EVERY form of discrimination by the property owner is OK. (They might or they might not.) You don’t think if the same guys did the same interview and asked “Can the black owner ban Koreans?” they’d get very different responses?
Dr. Murphy already pointed out this doesnt prove people are Rothbardians. I think you are missing the point of the video. When people like Maddow attack Ron or Rand Pauls view on that act they try to paint them as racists. That question in the video is to show that we don’t see it as a race issue but a property rights issue. The fact that so many people responded that they they did have a right to discriminate because it is their property seems to make our point very well in my opinion. If you believe they are using the question to prove everyone who answers the question the way the people in the video did is a Rothbardian then I would agree with you that it doesn’t work but I don’t think that was the point.
“I think you are missing the point of the video. When people like Maddow attack Ron or Rand Pauls view on that act they try to paint them as racists.”
Yes, they are dopes to do so.
“That question in the video is to show that we don’t see it as a race issue but a property rights issue.”
I know that. I have never accused libertarians of racism for adopting this view.
“The fact that so many people responded that they they did have a right to discriminate because it is their property seems to make our point very well in my opinion.”
Well, only if they think property owners can engage in ANY form of discrimination. But I bet most of them don’t. I think most of them believe that property owners of public businesses have a right to discriminate in many ways. But not based on race or creed.
I’m not trying, here, to claim that view is correct. I’m only saying these interviews reveal nothing novel about the average Americans view on these issues.
A minor point here Gene: Granted, the people in the interviews are not philosopher kings, as you and I are. But if someone says “because it’s their property” then yeah, that is hard to square with them denying those people the right to kick out Irish (who are not in the KKK, I guess).
Earlier you were trying to make it sound as if they had stated a necessary but insufficient condition, but no that’s not what it means to say “because” in this context. If they said, “Yeah, they should be able to kick out the KKK guy, because they have a heartbeat,” that would make no sense. Even though, if the owner didn’t have a heartbeat, he wouldn’t be able to kick out anybody.
I don’t think they reveal anything novel about the average Americans view either. I think it does help show the average guy libertarians don’t rail against that act because we are racists but because we take property rights further than other people.
If I have someone calling me racist because of my views on the civil rights act a video like that does a good job to show how defense of property rights can also oppose racism. Videos like that help get our viewpoint across to average people who have no idea what we believe except for Rachel Maddow claiming our views are racist. I don’t think it is a video we hold up and use to claim victory but as a tool to end the stupid racist charge and move the debate further.
People probably won’t reevaluate their views. Heck, it’s impossible even on this blog to get statist commenters to slowly and calmly walk through their arguments for the initiation of force to solve their pet non-existent social problems (like market-based unemployment and discrimination), isn’t it?
Yeah! Just try suggesting that all choices are not necessarily subjective and see how much dogma comes back, dogma I like to point out, that must itself be subjectively chosen, but is instead presented as an objective fact. A contradiction that no one here seems to want to hear.
RS, what the heck are you talking about?
Bob Roddis was lamenting about the difficulty of getting people to change their statist veiws. I was agreeing with him only about another fallacy that is commonly held among libertarian intellectuals.
Bob R., if you are thinking that anything I have said here is an argument FOR the 1964 Civil Rights Act, you are not really following what I am saying. (I do think the Act was a good idea, but I am NOT trying to argue for that here.) My only point here is that people seem to be looking at these interviews as if, because these interviewees think it should (A) be legal to discriminate against KKK members, that they as a logical consequence ought to also think it should (B) be legal to discriminate based on race. Perhaps (A) and (B) are both correct, as you think they are. But (B) does not follow from (A)!
Another good poll question would be, “Do you think people should be required to evaluate dating/marriage partners without regard to race?”
“What? No! They can’t take away my right to prefer black women! … I mean, for marriage partners. Customers, no problem.”
What relevance would this have? The law discriminates quite clearly in this case between public establishments and things like private clubs, which continued to be allowed to racially discriminate after 1964. The fact that one thinks that private discrimination ought to be legal does NOT imply one is inconsistent if one thinks public discrimination should be illegal.
I know, I know, “the law says so”. Brilliant argument for the consistency of the two positions! We can just pass a law to resolve the philosophical tension between any two view we hold!
“I think blanks are entitled to equal treatment under the law, except when it comes to enslavement for farm labor. No, there’s no problem with my position … see, we passed this law and all! That handwaves away any need to justify myself! Now back to the field, n*****!”
yikes!
Okay, let’s leave the law aside for a moment.
Do you think that not being attracted to someone because of their race is morally equivalent to refusing to serve someone at your restaurant because of their race?
Let’s play apples-to-apples, BA. You should compare either:
1) attraction of someone to (people of a)race, with desire to serve customers of that race; OR
2) refusing to date someone of a race, with refusing serve someone of a race at your restaurant.
In no case should you compare the (lack of) desire to interact, with the lack of interaction.
Which is kinda what you did, for reasons I’m sure you’ll be able to explain?
So yes, doing the appropriate comparison because of my skill at abstract thought, I think that not being attracted to someone because of their race is morally equivalent to not wanting to serve someone at your restaurant. Who wouldn’t?
“Who wouldn’t?”
People who have a tiny bit of common sense?
You see Silas, here in the real, non-abstract world, we DATE people because we are ATTRACTED to them. We do not have to be attracted to someone to serve them at our restaurant.
If you actually read my comment (which isn’t a habit for you, I know, but some deem it a common courtesy before you respond), you would see that I correctly identified the proper comparison as between
attraction to a potential dating partern, and
wanting to serve a particular customer
And indeed the law does require you to serve people that you don’t want to (in many particular cases, such as those where it would be racially discriminatory not to), while it does not require you to date people you are not attracted to.
(The real-life situation is messier, of course, but in a way that favors my point: you will never be subject to judicial scrutiny for racism in your choice of dating partners, while you will in your choice of clients, er, sorry, customers.)
See, Gene_Callahan, discussions can get really fruitful when you actually engage the position you’re responding to! How about you give it a go?
Yeah, I read it. It was inapt. Attraction is an intrinsic part of dating. Wanting to serve someone is not an intrinsic part of restauranting: I can do a perfectly good job waitering for someone I wish I didn’t have to waiter for, but can’t really successfully date someone I’m not attracted to! I read your posts, and saw that your “powers of abstraction” have led you to abstract out vital aspects of the two relationships that differentiate them in crucial ways.
Gene_Callahan, did you really just say that it’s not possible to date someone you’re not attracted to? Or were you saying the reverse, that it’s not possible to serve someone food if you don’t like serving them food?
Either way, your position is pretty confused. Maybe you should have stayed out of the “corral”.
Me. It would be morally equivalent to not want to serve someone at your house.
Your abstract thought skills suck.
I hereby call my restaurant “my house”. Now what?
Silas, you can call your restaurant your house, just like you can call a dog a horse. That does not make one the other.
Gene’s comparing politics to dwellings!! He doesn’t see the difference!! What a moron!!
@Gene_Callahan: Right, I know I can’t. Because people will use their arbitrary pretense at justification to say it’s not “really” a house. That still doesn’t change the fact that it’s not a justification, but an argument from wording. The argument really is nothing more than “I deem this not a house, therefore I claim the right to tell you whom you can serve in it.”
So where exactly is this deep philosophy imbedded in every layman that has a nominally invariant [1] juustification for which dwellings are “houses” and therefore discrimination-OK, and which are “restaurants” and therefore discrimination non-OK?
How about if I live in my restaurant? How about if I set up a token system to make it nominally a private club, like bars do in states where legislators with your intelligence make the laws. “Haw! If we just restrict alcohol consumption to private clubs, that will *definitely* cut down on drinking … hey … why are these private clubs so easy to join?”
I’m waiting for your brilliant justification with bated breath. The problem is, you just don’t know what the hell it is.
[1] one that cannot be tricked by labels
If, with your skill at abstract thought, you move to an even higher level of abstraction, you will be able to conclude that not being willing to date mosquitoes is morally equivalent to not serving blacks at your lunch counter!
That’s not quite how it works, Gene_Callahan, even if you decree it to be.
OK, Silas, I don’t have quite your confidence in my skills at abstract thought that you have in yours. But the confidence I do have comes from repeatedly testing those skills against external standards. Say, “Can I score in the 99th percentile on all three of the GRE tests?” Well, yes I can. “Can I get the top experts in my field to examine my PhD thesis and pass it?” Well, yes again. “Can I get a trading company, with their own money on the line, to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to exercise my skills in abstract thought programming for them?” Yes, again. “Can I repeatedly submit my work to peer-reviewed journals and pass their anonymous refereeing standards?” Yes, again. “Does a leading libertarian journal pay me to exercise my skills in abstract thought every month editing their journal, despite the fact I am no longer a libertarian?” Well, yes one does.
Still, I am always ready to correct those skills, as I must do every time I receive a referee report.
Meanwhile, the leading testimony to your skills at abstract thought seems to be your own boasting about them. But that is a lousy way to validate those skills: the nuttiest paranoid schizophrenic passes the test you apply to yourself.
I’m sorry, I must have missed the justification for your original argument in all that?
I can boast too, you see, and sometimes I do. But I never make that the core of my argument, as you just did. When you’re ready to apply that abstract thought to justifying your latest argument, I’ll be interested in hearing it. But until then, you might want to stay out of the corral.
I think that not being attracted to someone because of their race is morally equivalent to not wanting to serve someone at your restaurant.
Do you think they are both moral or both immoral?
Is that just a stalling question, or are you going to make some attempt at a productive comment based on it?
In any case, the answer is moral. Why would it be immoral to simply not *want* to serve someone?
Silas,
I’m not stalling, just trying to clarify what exactly your position is.
Initially you seemed to recognize that lots of people view not wanting to serve someone because of their race as morally different than not wanting to date/marry someone because of their race. So, for example, you quote a hypothetical typical person as saying:
“They can’t take away my right to prefer black women! … I mean, for marriage partners. Customers, no problem.”
Yet a few comments later you appear to have lost this knowledge, and are saying things like:
I think that not being attracted to someone because of their race is morally equivalent to not wanting to serve someone at your restaurant. Who wouldn’t?
The answer to your question “who wouldn’t?” is: lots and lots of people. And you seemed to recognize this in your original comment. Yet somewhere along the line this knowledge seems to have failed you.
Likewise, you got huffy about comparing not being attracted to someone of a given race with not serving someone of a given race, since the real comparisons are being not being attracted to someone and not wanting to serve them on the one hand, and actually not dating/marrying them and actually not serving them on the other. To me this just seems like pedantic pettiness. The only way it makes a difference is if you think that it is perfectly moral to not be attracted to someone because of their race, but that it is immoral to refuse to date someone because you aren’t attracted to them because of their race.
That strikes me as a bizarre view to hold, but then again I think that discriminating against the KKK isn’t racial discrimination, so maybe it’s just that I lack your skill at abstract thought.
Yes, BA, that was the point (which I also made in a sibling thread to Gene_Callahan): people do indeed treat the cases differently; it’s just that they have no consistent basis for doing so, and the difference only persists because they haven’t thought out the full implications of their views.
The only way it makes a difference is if you think that it is perfectly moral to not be attracted to someone because of their race, but that it is immoral to refuse to date someone because you aren’t attracted to them because of their race.
I made that distinction because when you make the comparions *correctly*, you see the naked absurdity of people believing that they *should* receive judicial scruity over who they pick to sell to, but not who they pick to date.
You were needlessly, confusing the imporant issues by comparing “not wanting to date someone” with “not serving someone”. A want shoudl map to a want, an action to an action.
You may now begin defending your outrage at being told who to marry but not at being told who to sell to.
I made that distinction because when you make the comparions *correctly*, you see the naked absurdity of people believing that they *should* receive judicial scruity over who they pick to sell to, but not who they pick to date.
First of all, my question was about morality, not judicial scrutiny. A person could easily say “It’s not right for a restaurant owner to refuse to serve someone just because they are black (or white), but they should have the legal right to do so.” In fact, until today that’s what I thought the libertarian position was on the matter. I didn’t expect libertarians to respond to the matter than they were baffled as to what could possibly be wrong with refusing to serve someone just because they were black if you didn’t want to.
Second, there’s nothing nakedly absurd about thinking that people believing that their should be judicial scruity over who people pick to sell to, but not who they pick to date. This is, in fact, what the vast majority of people do believe. If you point out to people the implications of their views here, their reaction is likely to be along the lines of “yeah, so?”
You can think that the distinction people are making is unjustified. But if you think simply pointing to the distinction is enough to show that it is unjustified, then you need to sharpen your famed skill at abstract thought.
Blackadder, I really can’t justify continuing someone when I have to correct their representation of everything I say. This last time, you confused my statement that,
“It is moral to not to _want_ to serve black customers”
with the argument that,
“It is moral not to _serve_ black customers.”
(Yes, it’s a pretty crucial distinction.)
And that was just the start!
See, it’s _possible_ to have a productive dialog. But that requires both sides — BOTH sides actually trying to get the arguments they’re replying to correct. And I just don’t see that happening from your end. When you’re ready to turn it all around, I’m here. As it stands, though, you’re “Yet Another Phony”.
Silas,
Actually, you seem to have taken a lot of care not to clarify your position. For example, you say that I’ve confused your statement:
“It is moral to not to _want_ to serve black customers”
with the position that,
“It is moral not to _serve_ black customers.”
Does that mean that you think it is *not* moral to refuse to serve black customers on the grounds that you have a (perfectly moral) desire not to serve black people?
If so, then you are committed to believing that it would be immoral to refuse to date or marry a black woman on the grounds that you are not attracted to black women (even though there is nothing wrong with not being attracted to black women).
[The reason you are committed to holding one of these two positions is that you have said:
1) that a) not being attracted to someone because of their race is equivalent to b) not wanting to serve someone because of their race;
2) that c) refusing to date or marry someone because of their race is equivalent to d) refusing to serve someone because of their race; and
3) that both a) not being attracted to someone because of their race and b) not wanting to serve someone because of their race are perfectly moral.]
On the other hand, if you don’t think there is anything wrong with refusing to serve black customers just because you don’t want to, then the distinction you are drawing is irrelevant, as your answer in both cases would be the same.
If you read my comments closely, I think you’ll find that I haven’t attributed either of these two positions to you. What I have said is that I find the beliefs bizarre, and that prior to this thread it hadn’t occurred to me that someone might try to defend the libertarian position on anti-discrimination laws by invoking these beliefs.
The only reason you find anything bizarre, BA, is because you didn’t take care to make apples-to-apples comparisons from the start. No sir! You found it perfectly relevant to compare “not wanting to date someone” with “not serving someone”, instead of the more reasonable comparison of desires to desires and actions to actions.
Stuck with that unresolved confusion, you end up asking questions that were resolved or obvious long before.
So: my point is that if it’s illegal to refuse to serve someone on the basis of race, it should be illegal to refuse to date someone on the basis of race.
People plainly see why the latter shouldn’t be illegal, but they somehow maintain the former should be. Why? Because, like slave-holding signers of the Declaration of Independence, they have unreconciled, conflicting views, some of which will change on further reflection.
Most likely, it’s just a naked case of “I’m not a big, evil, restaurant-owning rich person, so it’s okay to tell him who he has to serve. But I do date, and so I’m really sensitive about someone forcing me to date someone.”
Hence, my crticism of the conflicting views. (Btw, every point I’ve just made, was made toward the beginning of this exchange, if you just took the time to read before replying.)
Is that simple enough for you to start with? You want to maybe start filling in the hole Gene_Callahan left when he gave up on attempting to describe this deeply nuanced theory everyone seems to have about the “public” vs the “private”?
I’d love to see you have a go at that!
Silas, I didn’t say the law was good, or that it’s because the law said so. What I was saying was that there is a clear division in the law, and your question is on the other side of that division from the cases of banned racial discrimnation, so why do you think that it would somehow get people to change or re-evaluate their view. Why wouldn’t they think, “The law got this exactly right: public discrimination illegal, private discrimination legal”? (Which is, in fact, just what *I* do think.)
Because that distinction is nebulous to begin with and doesn’t get them a workable justification. Why does your (or anyone’s) mate search not count as public? Because you’ve decided to classify it that way?
Once again, I am going to corral my part of the discussion. I could give you a whole theory of law as to why I think this distinction is fine, but that’s way beyond what I wish to get into here. (And please, Silas, not another “If you really understood your position you could convey it in ten words or less” lecture!) The point is, people DO make this distinction, whether justified or no, and so asking them the marriage question is not going to get you anywhere.
Once again, I am going to corral my part of the discussion. I could give you a whole theory of law as to why I think this distinction is fine,
But that wouldn’t be what 99.9% of the population has in mind when they appeal to a public/private distinction; rather, they simply have inconsistent views and are unwilling to carry the logical implications of their views into a realm where they might have to feel the consequences of it.
Sometimes, it really is that simple.
In the meantime, I can continue to watch people squirm when they try to justify retaining the discrimination law when the shopkeeper puts up a sign that says “private club”.
(And please, Silas, not another “If you really understood your position you could convey it in ten words or less” lecture!)
That was never my position, and it was never honest of you delete my attempt to re-explain it the last time you falsely attributed that view to me.
I feel to see the analogy. Isn’t the Wal-Mart case about wage discrimination against women?
In that case the proper analogy is not if black restaurant owners should hire a KKK member to tend to their customers who might get unease at the site of a hooded man who reminds them of their grandparents tales, but whether if they choose to hire the KKK member they should pay him less than other employees who are not KKK members and do the very same job.
Yes, MamMoTh, the analogy fails in several ways.
MamMoTH,
Those are just superficial details. The issue at the heart of the matter is making choices about human interactions based on race. Wal Mart allegedly chose to value males more than females. Black restaurant owners chose to value non racist whites over racist whites. The common issue is value based on a superficial attribute of the individual (gender, race, etc.). The assumption behind the laws are that an individuals essential attribute is reason (not gender or race)and their value to other people is properly based on thier reason, so the law deems to force people to value people for thier reason, only reason cannot be forced so we get the mess we are all discussing.
This is the type of hair-splitting a government lawyer would make to steer the subject away from the essential core issue of property rights.
whah?!? laws are not created in a vacum and neither are the concepts of private property or an individuals right to it.
if you cant see the connection between a persons right to create, to use, and to dispose of thier own property and the people he/she chooses to include in this process then you should take the time to reflect a little deeper and broader than you have thus far. your ability to deal with conceptual abstractions is lacking and could use some more polishing.
I’m responding to Callahan. I’m on your side, RS.
ahh! ok. sorry. it looked like you were responding to me 😉 cheers
The core issue is that the value of property rights is as subjective as everything else in this Godless universe.
Just like genocide vs. the non-initiation of force is merely a subjective preference or whim of the mob.
Could be but I don’t think so. My guess is that answers to my questions would be different which will prove those details are relevant, not superficial.
It seems to me that whenever I challenge a statist to justify the extraordinary sanction of a statist civil or criminal case to solve an alleged problem that instead of the statist making a cool, calm and thorough justification for their proposal, instead their head explodes. Like the Martians when exposed to Slim Whitman’s yodeling (my sci-fi reference).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MhgnMX73Pw
BTW, the original “Indian Love Call” by Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy was my mother’s favorite song and her head didn’t explode.
OK, Bob R., let’s walk through this real slowly: in this thread, all I am trying to argue is that it is not incoherent for someone to think it should be legal to discriminate against KKK members but illegal to racially discriminate. I am NOT interested here in justifying the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I understand, you are against it. My head is not exploding because you are against it, I even understand very clearly WHY you are against it, and I even see some sense in why you are against it; I am just interested in limiting the discussion to the topic at hand, which is these mall videos, and the idea that they show people are inconsistent (or something) in believing some discrimination should be legal and some not.
Now, if you’d like to discuss the thread topic, that’s great. But I am not willing to expand the discussion on my part beyond that topic, because there are only so many hours in a day and lots to do!
I thought the thread topic was about using the WalMart case and the video to get people to think about property rights and discrimination. Of course, the statists could see these same videos and revel in the possibilities of 75 (or 750) separate categories of both mandatory and prohibitive civil, administrative and criminal procedures and penalties together with voluminous and arcane regulations and which would thereby ensure my continued productive employment for the next three decades.
all I am trying to argue is that it is not incoherent for someone to think it should be legal to discriminate against KKK members but illegal to racially discriminate.
The flaw is in the belief that it should be illegal for store owners to discriminate.
Of course if your one belief is inherently flawed, then it cannot be shown that it does lead to any other belief!
If you already deny the property owner of his right to having final authority over who enters his establishment and who doesn’t, and you put that final authority in the state’s hands, then of course given those flawed beliefs, it is not any MORE fallacious to say the state should permit people to discriminate against the KKK but not according to race. We’re already in fallacy land!
Based upon conventional notions of legal precedent, the allowance of any governmental control over the owner’s right to discriminate would/could preclude an objection to any other such control like Jim Crow laws. The slippery water slide to hell (aka ”The Road to Serfdom”).
The bright line of private property and the non-aggression principle would preclude both intrusions while allowing more effective non-violent sanctions such as ostracization and peer pressure to accomplish the desired goal.
Further, why would a black person want to eat at Ku Klux Klem’s Redneck Diner any more than such person would want to hire, feed or associate with Ku Klux Klem?
Keep in mind that this video came out after Rachel Maddow attacked Rand Paul like he was a racist for not supporting the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I don’t think they were trying to prove the libertarian case but to show that it wasn’t about race but about property rights. So by asking a question that got everyday people to defend the right to discriminate in that specific scenario with property rights should do the job of showing we aren’t racist for holding this view.
If you believe this video shows people are inconsistent I would agree with Dr. Callahan that it isnt a fair question because a simple follow up question that he posed would refute that. But if the point was to show that we aren’t racist for believing people should be allowed to discriminate because it is about property rights then I think the video does a great job.
Dan,
The argument is that the video shows those people to be inconsistent in their views on what constitutes racial discrimination, the issue of property rights is secondary because it comes into play only when people choose to excercise those rights based on their discriminatory choices. Gene’s argument is that the law is basically unlimited in how it can define the sphere within which one can excercise those choices so long as it reflects popular norms. In which case the law can go to absolute extremes and ban all association for certian groups or force others to associate with certain groups against thier will, so long as the majority desires it. On this premise, the only reason it has not done so is by accident, tomorrow we may have a vote where 51% vote to enslave the other 49%, or perhaps not.
I get the argument you guys are having but I have a different opinion of the point of the video.
Dan, I agree with you. It was not about specifics of discrimination, it was about discrimination in and of itself. Anybody that owns private property should have the right to discriminate against those that enjoy the use of his property, or engage in exchange for the use of such property; it is HIS/HER property, after all.
Sure, there are a great many things in this world that are offensive, obscene, and/or unjust, but when one owns property they have the right to discriminate upon who they enter into contract with to enjoy the services and utility of that property. In any form of contract the choice to enter into that contract should be entirely voluntary. If you take away the power to enter into contract voluntarily, then the property subject to that contract is no longer “private” property, it is now public property. This is the problem as I see it.
To divide people into groups, and to disregard private property rights in the favor of groups, is just as horrendous as to dislike particular groups. It takes a collectivist mind in order to order owners of private property to accept any and all peoples to enjoy the benefits of their property under voluntary contract. If you take the right of a property owner to discriminate (in any form) upon who he engages into contract with to enjoy the benefits of his rightfully-owned property, then it is clear that he no longer is the full-owner of that property. Sure, he runs the risk of alienating himself if he decides not to allow such-and-such group to enjoy his property under contract, but that is his right as the owner of his property.
I agree that all people of every race, color and creed should be viewed equally under the law, but to deny the right of discrimination with regard to your own property is not in keeping with this ideal, and only serves to undermine the ideas of individualism and private ownership. Instead, it pits group against group, and further instills the idea that we ALL belong to a certain group.
I dont let just anybody borrow my car, enter my home, use my business services, or enjoy my company; why should I change my position merely because my business happens to be along Commonsville Road in Podunk, USA?
If I do not have full and voluntary choice over who I enter into contract to use/enjoy my property and services, then I no longer own the property/services.
@ Gene Callahan,
“Premise: It is OK to discriminate against groups with obnoxious political views.
Premise: It is NOT OK to discriminate against groups based on race.
Conclusion: It is OK to discriminate against the KKK, but not OK to discriminate against Koreans.
The above argument is certainly “logically consistent.”
Really? Lets test a few more….
Premise 1: People discriminate.
Premise 2: Some types of discrimination are rational and others are not.
Conclusion: Not all people discriminate rationally.
Premise 1: Man is fallible.
Premise 2: People can be forced into infallibility.
Conclusion: government can force people into perfection.
Now, you tell me which of these syllogisms is based on a false premise.
Here is another one for you Gene:
Premise1: People who disagree do not cooperate.
Premise2: Agreement can be forced.
Conclusion: Government can force people to agree with each other and improve cooperation.
It should be clear to any rational person that it is impossible that government enforced anti-discrimination laws can result in a reduction in the overall amount of discrimination. All it does is institutionalize discrimination by replacing informal discrimination of one type for formal discrimination of another type.
For the record, I generally never think it’s “ok” to discriminate on the basis of race or creed (except perhaps for the purposes of joining a cultural club or church) although it’s also generally none of my business. I just do not see that it’s necessary to call the cops and start the statist civil/criminal litigation process to “solve” the alleged “problem”.
I would agree. It’s none of anyone else’s business and certainly not a problem that the state needs to solve.
No one is in any way “harmed” by a person’s choice as to who he/she associates or disassociates with regardless of a public/private context.
The only rational exception to this would be for any government owned property, such as a courthouse.
Wow- your article on Mises was stunning, Bob. One of the best I’ve read on the subject.