NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a thread of thought in a number of anarcho-capitalist and paleo-libertarian circles that, in the private sector, the state should not attempt to stop racism by proprietors in the private sector, ie that if a store owner does not want to deal with black people in his establishment then he is entitled under the free-market system to refuse them. They say that making a store owner still do business with people regardless of their opinions on race is a positive right- that is, it is not a protection/negative right (like the right against physical harm or the right against slander) but a positive right (the right to have a job or the right to clean water). The assumption is that you are coercing businesses serve people who they would otherwise not if it were up to them. Because libertarians and anarcho-capitalists do not believe in positive rights, they think that the government should stay away from the issue and allow the market to self-regulate.

I would have to disagree with the assertion that protection from racism is a positive right- rather, I believe that it is a negative right. Having to deal with rude and obnoxious people is a positive right to the rude and obnoxious people, as they are initiating a form of force and the market is being forced to serve them. However, not dealing with people based on race is an initiation of force, as the people being discriminated have not done anything. Thus, it is a negative right, the reasoning being that I see little difference from having a sign that says "Blacks need not apply", and going up to someone and shouting a racial epithet in their face- both are forms of harassment. Most libertarians and anarcho-capitalists would agree that protection from harrassment is a negative right, and I see little difference between the proprietor harrassment and the personal harrassment- both, I believe, are forms of initiation of force against another, something that must be prevented by the government in the interest of protecting rights.

This is not to say that I do not think that the market would self-regulate at all. It is difficult to have an egalitarian private sector when the public sector segregates and turns a blind eye to the violation of rights (see Jim Crow laws), as government can have a great deal of control in shaping society which will spill over into the marketplace. Money is money and skills are skills, no matter who they come from (see the employment of black workers in northern marketplaces due to a greater availability of said wage-seeking workers, as well as employment of workers in the South by more egalitarian southerners who recognized the worth of employees regardless of superficialities such as race). Pragmatism and profit-seeking would help to compensate for racism by those wise enough to see the financial benefits of egalitarianism. Still, although society would self-regulate if murder were not illegal in order to stop said crime (such as vigilante groups), it is much easier if government simply makes sure it is stopped and punished.

Any rebuttals or comments?

Having to deal with rude and obnoxious people is a positive right to the rude and obnoxious people, as they are initiating a form of force and the market is being forced to serve them.
To take an extreme example...should you be able to have sex with me if you wish, and if I refuse that is some form of positive right?

Thus, it is a negative right, the reasoning being that I see little difference from having a sign that says "Blacks need not apply", and going up to someone and shouting a racial epithet in their face- both are forms of harassment.
Same here. I assume you're a guy. I don't sleep with guys - am I harrassing you? Am I hurting you? Should you have the right to have your way with me if you so wished?

I think the world would be a better place stores are not allowed to discriminate based on race.

Essentially your post boils down to:

"We're from the government and we're here to help"

The irony being that the government always has and always will hinder more than help, long term.


If we assume no discrimination on the government's part, than businesses which catered to blacks would quickly outstrip those that refused service, especially in this day and age. So if you can assure minimal and egalitarian treatment from government sources than the 'problem' would resolve itself within a generation or two.

I would say that the entire enterprise demonstrates how silly the notion of positive and negative rights are, because one blends into the other so easily. Rather than talking about positive and negative freedoms, it might be better to talk about freedom in terms of the narrow Hobbesian freedom, or freedom from the fear of oppression in the state of nature, versus the more expansive Kantian notion of freedom, or freedom from one's own passions and achieving a rational decision to do something.

I think that people who want to opt out of the cooperative economy should be allowed to do so. We can set aside an area in the Simpson desert for them where they can refuse to serve whoever they like. Despite the harsh environment the place should soon be booming economically, what with the zero percent tax rate and all. No doubt people will flock there and revel in the freedom of being able to discrimate against whoever they please.

Essentially your post boils down to:

"We're from the government and we're here to help"

The irony being that the government always has and always will hinder more than help, long term.


If we assume no discrimination on the government's part, than businesses which catered to blacks would quickly outstrip those that refused service, especially in this day and age. So if you can assure minimal and egalitarian treatment from government sources than the 'problem' would resolve itself within a generation or two.

Except for the boiling down bit, I would agree with what you say. I think a problem with what I proposed is that certain government officials transformed the "We should be meritocratic and fair" idea to "Let's socially engineer to get votes." The meritocratic and fair is a negative right, freedom from harrassment. The latter, which is affirmative action more or less, is a positive right, meaning that you deserve to get something from others- coercion, in other words. I am not saying that the businesses actually have to buy and sell- I am saying that they shouldn't be able to harrass. I would also agree that the government is the prime instigator of racism, due to their high level of control and the fact that government is, more or less, coercion, and if southern politicians had endeavoured for fairness in the public sector it would have spilled into the private sector. Also, I believe that the private sector would push to egalitarianism in the name of pragmatism and profit.

Simple to be a racist if you own a business. Hang a sign that says we have the right to refuse service to anyone. I have one right next to the entrance of my establishment. You can use that any way you like really. Although I would suggest that if you want business use this sparingly.;)

it can be handled by a boycott

it can be handled by a boycott

So. You have suggest powerful (and misguided) passion against affirmative action policies, but you think ordinary racism should be legal and can just "be handled by a boycott"?

I'm disappointed, but only mildly surprised that your commitment to equal rights and opportunities is hollow.

If we assume no discrimination on the government's part, than businesses which catered to blacks would quickly outstrip those that refused service, especially in this day and age.

You mean like the businesses that refuse the sale of certain prescription drugs to both individual customers and clinics on nonsensical grounds are being outstripped by those that don't refuse? Oh wait....they aren't.

Positive rights obligate another to perform an action.

Negative rights obligate another to refrain from an action.

Considering the government enforces the business to perform an action, it must be considered positive, if you are maintaining the dichotomy.

Simple to be a racist if you own a business. Hang a sign that says we have the right to refuse service to anyone. I have one right next to the entrance of my establishment. You can use that any way you like really. Although I would suggest that if you want business use this sparingly.;)

The problem is that certain fundamentalists, racists, xenophobes, etc have no concept of the meaning "Use sparingly"

So. You have suggest powerful (and misguided) passion against affirmative action policies, but you think ordinary racism should be legal and can just "be handled by a boycott"?

I'm disappointed, but only mildly surprised that your commitment to equal rights and opportunities is hollow.Given your strong opposition to equal rights and opportunities, I can understand why you would be disappointed that someone can simultaneously oppose racism in the public sector and oppose racism in the private sector.

The best part is your distinction between ordinary racism and some other kind of racism, as if a government agency's decision to turn down a job application because of the applicant's skin color were somehow far different from a private business' decision to turn down a job application because of skin color.

Positive rights obligate another to perform an action.

Negative rights obligate another to refrain from an action.

Considering the government enforces the business to perform an action, it must be considered positive, if you are maintaining the dichotomy.


the statement 'force to treaty races equally' can also be stated as 'force to refrain from being racist'

Given your strong opposition to equal rights and opportunities, I can understand why you would be disappointed that someone can simultaneously oppose racism in the public sector and oppose racism in the private sector.

LOL.

So you boycott all the businesses with affirmative action policies?

The best part is your distinction between ordinary racism and some other kind of racism, as if a government agency's decision to turn down a job application because of the applicant's skin color were somehow far different from a private business' decision to turn down a job application because of skin color.

Um. Actually I think both should be illegal. You think one should be legal.

I have to agree with the current laws against doing this, whether they are considered positive or negative rights, it is a good law none the less.

I however, am against affirmative action in its current form. It should be made into anyone disadvantaged by the area they had to grow up in, rather than certain races (not all African-Americans lived in the ghetto).

I think the thing that you've got to realize is that it makes no economic sense to deny anyone willing to purchase your wares at the prices you charge from being allowed to do so. Anyone who does so is going to suffer economically, and that will be plenty enough punishment in my personal opinion. If a person is rational, they will deal with all of their potential customers, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, whatever.

I think the thing that you've got to realize is that it makes no economic sense to deny anyone willing to purchase your wares at the prices you charge from being allowed to do so. Anyone who does so is going to suffer economically, and that will be plenty enough punishment in my personal opinion. If a person is rational, they will deal with all of their potential customers, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, whatever.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
--James Madison, Federalist #51

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
--James Madison, Federalist #51
I'm not asking for men to be angels, I'm asking for men to be rational.

That's probably too much, though, isn't it?

I'm not asking for men to be angels, I'm asking for men to be rational.

And, because humans are not always "rational" in the sense you imply, we have laws.

The history of Jim Crow may shed a bit of light on this question.
Remember that segregation in the US was originally implimented by the government and was resisted by business owners who saw no economic advantage in discriminating against paying customers.


Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about.

It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.

It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others didn't care, that was sufficient politically, because what blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote.

The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/10/27/173033.html

If someone chooses to be racist and not allow people from a certain group to be served at their place of business, then they will suffer from the lack of that person's business. And most likely a lack of my business as well.

And most likely a lack of my business as well.
So perhaps you're enlightened enough to be that way.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who would feel that the lack of <insert class/race/sex> in the store was a good thing, one that would encourage them to shop there more often.

The idea of "let the local businesses sort it out" works fine so long as you have a community that isn't already racist/sexist/what-have-you. When they are, however, a lack of laws requiring they refrain from racism allows them to simply become more insular and closed and they can avoid dealing with the fear and ignorance that causes the discrimination in the first place -- thus enabling it to continue or strengthen.

So perhaps you're enlightened enough to be that way.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who would feel that the lack of <insert class/race/sex> in the store was a good thing, one that would encourage them to shop there more often.

The idea of "let the local businesses sort it out" works fine so long as you have a community that isn't already racist/sexist/what-have-you. When they are, however, a lack of laws requiring they refrain from racism allows them to simply become more insular and closed and they can avoid dealing with the fear and ignorance that causes the discrimination in the first place -- thus enabling it to continue or strengthen.

It is exactly to counter such arguments that I gave the example of the Jim Crow laws above. History shows that if you leave it to the business owners, the majority will do what's in their best economic interest, even if they are racist. And since the Jim Crow laws have been abolished, the majority of business owners have abolished segregationist policies.

So you boycott all the businesses with affirmative action policies?
Of course. A massive boycott against all businesses that discriminate against certain people because of skin color should do the trick.
Um. Actually I think both should be illegal. You think one should be legal.The last I checked, you supported having the government hire people based on skin color and encourage businesses to do the same.

There isn't much point in relying on the government to enforce laws against racial discrimination when the government practices racial discrimination in its own hiring decisions. Fox, henhouse, you know how it goes. Wait until the government stops gerrymandering, starts letting former felons vote, ends its affirmative action programs, starts distributing voting machines to precincts based solely on the population in each precinct, and in summary starts treating all races equally (without some races being more equal than others). Then get back to me on the possibility of having the government put an end to all racial discrimination in private businesses.

I think that you shouldn't force store owners to serve people they don't want to serve. It's their property.

You mean like the businesses that refuse the sale of certain prescription drugs to both individual customers and clinics on nonsensical grounds are being outstripped by those that don't refuse? Oh wait....they aren't.
As the definition of what is a perscription drug is government REGULATION. than no, that doesn't fall under my example.

I think that you shouldn't force store owners to serve people they don't want to serve. It's their property.

The fact that it's their property makes no difference if they violate the law, any more than "it's their property" excuses murder on that property. I'm trying to find the Supreme Court decision, but I am pretty certain that it is illegal to refuse to serve a customer based purely on the race of that customer.

Additionally, I find the selective notion of profitability on this thread troubling. You all seem to think that it is necessarily the case that catering to blacks or other racial minorities is inherently more profitable than refusing to do so, but you all forget that in a situation where such discrimination is plausible, its usually also the case that some white people will refuse to go to places that cater to mixed-race crowds. If its the case that accepting five poor blacks into your restaurant means losing 50 middle-class white customers to the discriminatory place down the street, then it is in your economic interest to discriminate as well.

Additionally, I find the selective notion of profitability on this thread troubling. You all seem to think that it is necessarily the case that catering to blacks or other racial minorities is inherently more profitable than refusing to do so, but you all forget that in a situation where such discrimination is plausible, its usually also the case that some white people will refuse to go to places that cater to mixed-race crowds. If its the case that accepting five poor blacks into your restaurant means losing 50 middle-class white customers to the discriminatory place down the street, then it is in your economic interest to discriminate as well.

Two problems here:
First, it's not a matter of catering to one or another ethnic group. It is in the interest of the business owner to be color blind. Catering to blacks, whites, or anyone else implies discriminating the against other groups.

And secondly, your argument flies in the face of history. Why do you think business owners resisted the implimentation of Jim Crow? It wasn't because they weren't racist.

I always find silly this "they should be able to discriminate since it's their property!" attitude.

The market is there at the behest of society. You want to work commercially in this society? Well, then you don't get to act like a racist douche, but must offer your service equally to the public of this society regardless of race. Simple as that. It may be your property, but it's our society.

I always find silly this "they should be able to discriminate since it's their property!" attitude.

The market is there at the behest of society. You want to work commercially in this society? Well, then you don't get to act like a racist douche, but must offer your service equally to the public of this society regardless of race. Simple as that. It may be your property, but it's our society.

That attitude is not silly at all. As you already realize. If someone were to be a total asshole to his customers than he won't last long in business. The freemarket is great at weeding out bad apples. So I don't say we need laws to tell people they can't be an asshole. It will work itself out. I have seen it happen.

That attitude is not silly at all. As you already realize. If someone were to be a total asshole to his customers than he won't last long in business. The freemarket is great at weeding out bad apples. So I don't say we need laws to tell people they can't be an asshole. It will work itself out. I have seen it happen.

It won't in a market where the discriminated person is part of an "unpopular" minority, and the majority are in favour of the discrimination. This "the market will fix it" attitude strikes hardest against the weakest, constitutes a tyranny of the majority, in making the minority person dependent on someone actually giving a damn that he was discriminated against, and is thus incredibly unjust and discriminatory in and of itself.

Will there be a poll?

Two problems here:
First, it's not a matter of catering to one or another ethnic group. It is in the interest of the business owner to be color blind. Catering to blacks, whites, or anyone else implies discriminating the against other groups.

And secondly, your argument flies in the face of history. Why do you think business owners resisted the implimentation of Jim Crow? It wasn't because they weren't racist.

You seem to be under the impression that by merely restating your original point, you can somehow make my substantive counterexample go away.

Let me be more clear: it is in the overall interest of the business owner to be color-blind, but a large part of his clientele may disagree. If it's the case that the money lost from bigots leaving his store outweighs the amount gained by new clientele from the discriminated group, then what exactly is said business owner going to do? Hint: it isn't not be color-blind.

As for your second point, it flies in the face of history how? Business owners ended up practicing discriminatory policies against blacks (which brought about actions like the diner sit-ins) because they unsuccessfully resisted Jim Crow laws, and they still resisted changing even after those Jim Crow laws were successfully abolished. They did so because it was profitable for them to do so--if they allowed blacks to eat there, whites wouldn't, and whites had more money.

the statement 'force to treaty races equally' can also be stated as 'force to refrain from being racist'

You could look at it that way, I don't think being racist is an action to refrain from, it is more a line of thinking. I look at it as forcing the business to serve those that they would not serve otherwise. Where there is no action, there becomes action.

That attitude is not silly at all. As you already realize. If someone were to be a total asshole to his customers than he won't last long in business. The freemarket is great at weeding out bad apples. So I don't say we need laws to tell people they can't be an asshole. It will work itself out. I have seen it happen.

Do you justify allowing people to be racist with their own businesses because they will be punished by the free market, or do you justify it because it is their own business.

I think it can be shown that businesses do not often follow natural free market forces, and I think it can also be shown that the market doesn't provide enough pressure to force out companies that are bad apples.

I think it can be shown that businesses do not often follow natural free market forces,

I'd go a step further and say that businesses will often go out of their way to change the law in such a manner so as to purposefully avoid natural free market forces. This idea that businesses are pro-market is patently insane; competition is constantly creating pressure to lower prices while raising the quality of products, both of which make it much more difficult for businesses to make profit. The competitive free market is decidedly anti-business. Which is why the competitve free market is so crucial...

At any rate, I think my general response to the "the market will take care of it" argument concerning racism is this: Sure, now that the government has gone to the trouble of remaking society via the implementation of anti-discrimination and anti-racism laws. Relying completely on the market alone requires human beings to be totally rational, that they always behave rationally. Five minutes in the real world will demonstrate that such does not reflect reality. Human beings often do very stupid things for very stupid reasons even if they hurt themselves or others in the process (thus necessitating the existance of government...).

You could look at it that way, I don't think being racist is an action to refrain from, it is more a line of thinking. I look at it as forcing the business to serve those that they would not serve otherwise. Where there is no action, there becomes action.
That only applies if the status quo action of a business is turning away people.

This is not typically true, however, as the status quo action of most businesses is to be open to customers (there are some notable exceptions, such as Costco and membership only businesses). When they disallow a certain class of customers then that is a specific decision at odds with the status quo. Thus, it is an action that is taking place that they should refrain from, and the legislation merely enforces that they cannot deviate from the standard practice -- as the deviation on the balance takes away benefits for portions of the populace.

While I support anti-discrimination laws for businesses, I do not support them for private clubs. Why? Because the issue is turned around. Clubs typically do not accept all comers -- turning people away is the standard action, and letting people in is the deviation from status quo. If we were to legislate that they had to let certain people in, that would be legislating them to deviate from their standard action, however in this case, their deviation provides benefits for portions of the populace, so is allowed.

Will there be a poll?

I don't think so, because of the content of the subject. Some people may not understand the concept of negative and positive rights- if I place a poll with the concept, I think that many people will click "positive right" because it means that it's a good right (which is not what positive and negative right means.) Also, there is a dichotomy on even the positive and negative right- see the "The free-market will punish them," and the "It is their property- they should do what they wish."

I also think that one of the problems in this question is that government is racist, and their distortions push the private sector, which they coerce, into the wrong mind-set. If the government is fair and egalitarian, the market will move to more freedom and more logic (see the effect of Jim Crow laws). I do think, however, that protection from racism by proprietors is a negative right, ie "People must refrain from racial harrassment" as opposed to "You must serve people regardless of their race." I do not think you have to serve anyone, nor am I advocating the forcing of businesses to serve everyone- you should just not harrass others based on race. The government should clean house first, however, before they tell the private sector and private society what to do.

Human beings often do very stupid things for very stupid reasons even if they hurt themselves or others in the process (thus necessitating the existance of government...

and simultaneously demonstrating the insanity of granting a few of those humans vast amounts of power over the others)

That only applies if the status quo action of a business is turning away people.

This is not typically true, however, as the status quo action of most businesses is to be open to customers (there are some notable exceptions, such as Costco and membership only businesses). When they disallow a certain class of customers then that is a specific decision at odds with the status quo. Thus, it is an action that is taking place that they should refrain from, and the legislation merely enforces that they cannot deviate from the standard practice -- as the deviation on the balance takes away benefits for portions of the populace.

While I support anti-discrimination laws for businesses, I do not support them for private clubs. Why? Because the issue is turned around. Clubs typically do not accept all comers -- turning people away is the standard action, and letting people in is the deviation from status quo. If we were to legislate that they had to let certain people in, that would be legislating them to deviate from their standard action, however in this case, their deviation provides benefits for portions of the populace, so is allowed.

That is a valid point, but I still feel that non-service is non-action, service is action. It takes some semantic manipulation to change that.

and simultaneously demonstrating the insanity of granting a few of those humans vast amounts of power over the others)

True. But I don't claim that it's a perfect solution. "Government" does not necessarily mean "granting vast amounts of power" anymore than "freedom" necessarily means "chaos and disorder." There are ways to check and prevent excessive power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg) while maintaining peace and order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy).

Do you justify allowing people to be racist with their own businesses because they will be punished by the free market, or do you justify it because it is their own business.

I think it can be shown that businesses do not often follow natural free market forces, and I think it can also be shown that the market doesn't provide enough pressure to force out companies that are bad apples.


It actually happens all the time. Store owners/ managers boot people on a regular basis. I boot people from my restuarant because of being to drunk or acting like a total asshole and bothering other customers. I also boot transients trying to use the bathroom. My restuarant is downtown. But if you go beyond social norm than you take a hit financially. If I were to put up a sign in front of my restaraunt stating no one allowed that is (take your pick). Than I run into a serious problem from regular customers being offended and maybe even people picketing. I could even get on the news as being a asshole. Now do you think that is enough pressure? I just think the less the laws the better. Basic human rights are a must but to tell a business owner who he can or can not have in there business is over the line. Think of female gyms, womens clubs. Also think of a lone male hanging out at a daycare or kids type business. Maybe a group of 19 year olds hanging out at a senior center being annoying? There are circumstances where it is fit to boot people. Also ever seen the sign on the door at a korean convenience store that says only 1-2 kids at a time? I see it all the time. No shoes/shirt no service discriminates against some poor.

That is a valid point, but I still feel that non-service is non-action, service is action. It takes some semantic manipulation to change that.

Yes. But I do not think that racism against patrons by proprietors is so much a non-service as it is an act of harrassment (an initiation of force), against which we all have protections. He can still not serve people based on their behavior etc. (which are forms of initiation of force), or refuse to sell certain goods and services (which simply means he is not giving consent to a transaction- a transaction is only legitimate if there is mutual consent b/c both parties see a benefit in said transaction), but he cannot harrass people based on their race (race being a non-action, and moving against it being an initiation of force).

(moving against it being an initiation of force).

There is no move against the race, it is non-movement because of the race. It is not harassment to ignore someone.

Silly question but here it goes. If all business' reserve the right to "refuse service" to anyone for whatever reason, which in theory I suppose I might agree with. But if this is the case could an airline refuse service to fat overweight people who would cost them more money?

Shops could refuse all service to wheelchair people in order to avoid accomodating for them, and taxis already pass service on suspicious types..I'm not a fan of positive rights or government regulation for business but mabey this can be justified :confused:

Silly question but here it goes. If all business' reserve the right to "refuse service" to anyone for whatever reason, which in theory I suppose I might agree with. But if this is the case could an airline refuse service to fat overweight people who would cost them more money?

Shops could refuse all service to wheelchair people in order to avoid accomodating for them, and taxis already pass service on suspicious types..I'm not a fan of positive rights or government regulation for business but mabey this can be justified :confused:

The overweight person on an airline I have heard of them having to buy two seats. If you take the space on the airliner you pay. Simple really....

Shops routinely do not have handicap access. Some do some don't... Taxis yes you should know they pass on fairs all the time because of this. It's a tough one I understand but you sometimes just can't regulate what people think or do that doesn't physically harm another person.

The overweight person on an airline I have heard of them having to buy two seats. If you take the space on the airliner you pay. Simple really....

Shops routinely do not have handicap access. Some do some don't... Taxis yes you should know they pass on fairs all the time because of this. It's a tough one I understand but you sometimes just can't regulate what people think or do that doesn't physically harm another person.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't or that we can't? We most obviously can and do.

Defamation doesn't physically harm another person. Should it be legal as well?