Many modern liberals will claim the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended discrimination against women and minorities and without it, racism and sexism would be just as prevalent as it was before the act. They also hold the Civil Rights Act as burden of proof in that large, federal regulation can be a positive thing. Where are they wrong?
I honestly differ from most libertarians about this. I think racism would have lasted much longer without the Civil Rights Act than with it. In a purely free society, it seems as if most Southern whites would have avoided "intermingling" with blacks because they are free to do so and could perpetuate more racist ideas in their culture because the children of the new generations would not be as exposed to other cultures as they were in mandatory schooling, etc. There obviously was a degree of segregation even after the Civil Rights Act though. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the South would be nearly as racist today, but I think the CRA hastened the demise of racism in the South.
But a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
To paraphrase Walter Williams from memory: I'm racist and sexist because I chose to marry a black woman instead of a human from a different race or sex.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I heard Tom Woods argue that the forced integration mandated by the Civil Rights Act led to an increase in violence between blacks and whites. A good example of this would be the court-ordered busing in cities like Boston. The effect on the education of both black and white children was negative.
Discrimination is a cultural phenomenon that will persist as long as people of different race and ethnicity exist, and it is in general a positive force that draws people of like-mind together and allows different groups to cooperate peacefully. If you think about it, the family is the ultimate unit of discrimination, and it is also the foundation of modern civilization.
Right, I don't really have a problem with discrimination as long as it is done peacefully. Obviously I would prefer different members of society to get along, and that is probably done easiest with capitalism. Jim Crow laws were enforced by the State, as I'm sure white capitalists could employ both poor blacks and poor whites together and that would easily have fostered a natural, voluntary, and peaceful environment for both cultures to get to know each other better as well.
Title II is brought up a lot because it affects private companies. I'm allowed to discriminate against people because they're black, gay, bald, or whatever I want if it's my own private business. As long as I don't impede upon their lives, I'm good. When the CRA outlawed discrimination in publicly-funded operations, it had the complete right to do that because the state promoted the segregation in the first place. When things are publicly-funded, the state is, in essence, the owner of the business, so it can decide what is going to be segregated or not. Pretend the state hadn't been in charge of any schools. Sure, some schools would have segregated, but others wouldn't have. And something would have happened to the segregated schools, which I like to call the "Asshole Effect". My apologies if we can't say bad words on here. 'Good' people will always tend to do less business with 'bad' people. If you have a choice between going to school with kids who like freedom or with those who are crazy racists, you'll pick the freedom kids. The racist schools would eventually go out of business because no one wants to be around an asshole. When it's publicly-funded, there's no way to go out of business because there's no true budget. In that way, the CRA controlled its own public schools (its own business, basically) but can't force others to do the same. It would be the same as it is now.
Libertarian Ron Paul said, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”
Libertarian John Stossel said, “Today, the result of government intrusion is that in the name of fighting “discrimination,” all-women gyms are sued and forced to open to men; a gay softball team is sued for rejecting bisexual members; A wedding photographer in New Mexico is fined thousands of dollars for refusing to take photos of a homosexual wedding. Instead of just eliminating segregation, the Civil Rights Act imposed mandatory association. Rand Paul had it right. Neither mandatory segregation, nor mandatory association, is appropriate in a free society.”
Stossel also said, “Companies couldn't stop discriminating even if they had wanted to: "Jim Crow also mandated discrimination in private enterprise (the opposite of today's reality which mandates desegregation). If you WANTED to open a restaurant (or run a hotel) that served blacks and whites equally, in most Southern states, you COULDN'T."
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pretty terrible. Businesses in the south probably couldn't afford to continue discriminating anyway.
The State should neither force segregation in the private sector,nor force force integration in the private sector.
However, I do believe that if it has to exist, then the public sector should be integrated, so nothing other than title II was a failure, in my opinion.
They really should've made title II a seperate bill, but I would've voted against the whole thing because of title II.
Jim crow laws guys.... You'd have to believe that business owners would intentionally piss off half of their consumer base, creating a huge profit opportunity, to think that there was mass voluntary boycott of blacks. The mainstream left needs to get their mythology straight. Either capitalists are racist, in which case they DON'T put profits first. Or capitalists are a bunch of greedy profit maximizing extortionists, who put monetary gain first, and therefore are color blind. You can't have it both ways.
Just read Richard A. Epstein's book Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Also keep in mind Title VII, guys.
Couldn't the Supreme Court have simply ruled that Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional? They did something similar with Brown v. Board of Education (1954), but that was only in the context of public schooling. At the very least, the Supreme Court could've ruled that it was unconstitutional to enforce Jim Crow laws on private businesses. On the other hand, there's the issue of states' rights.
Sieben:Jim crow laws guys.... You'd have to believe that business owners would intentionally piss off half of their consumer base, creating a huge profit opportunity, to think that there was mass voluntary boycott of blacks.
I lol'd.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
You can't eliminate racism by declaring it illegal any more than you can eliminate bad weather by declaring it illegal.
But you can subsidize racism by making it illegal for minority workers to compete for jobs.
Yes--all government interference in the economy, insofar as it limits competition, will subsidize racism. Furthermore, government itself, regardless of its involvement in the economy, simply by promoting conflict, will promote racism.
Coase: You can't eliminate racism by declaring it illegal any more than you can eliminate bad weather by declaring it illegal.
I just don't get it on why they still make it an issue?
It's still an issue because one day the government will want it to be illegal to hire a disproportional team of workers (i.e. race, sexual orientation, gender, etc). You know, so everyone is equal the exact same.
I don't have a problem with civil rights, even with regard to public accommodations. I think that libertarians get so wrapped up in property rights that we forget the moral basis for them, which is rooted in respect for other people. If we truly respect other people as ones who should actively pursue happiness, then we will not only respect their property rights, but we will not discriminate against them merely on the basis of their sex, race, or sexual orientation.
"but we will not discriminate against them merely on the basis of their sex, race, or sexual orientation."
So people should be forced to associate/contract with others and to employ their own property in the transaction? Who's going to enforce it?
Sounds decidedly un-libertarian.
Just another form of 'divide and conquer'.
The South is (and probably always has been) less racist in a de facto sense than the North. Cival Rights Act had nothing to do with it.
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
Eric080: Right, I don't really have a problem with discrimination as long as it is done peacefully.
Right, I don't really have a problem with discrimination as long as it is done peacefully.
Exactly, you can't legislate racism out of people. And who cares anyways? As long as the racist doesn't attack you or your property (like any other non-racist person) let them do whatever they want with their racism. If they prefer not to serve someone they don't like or not socialize with people they don't like that's probably for the best anyway.
freeradicals:And who cares anyways?
I've always wondered this. Why do I need to be concerned if someone or a group is a racist? I can understand maybe if a family member or friend or an employee was racist, but this whole "we need to eliminate racism" crusade is a wonderful excuse for more state/collectivist action.
jay: "but we will not discriminate against them merely on the basis of their sex, race, or sexual orientation." So people should be forced to associate/contract with others and to employ their own property in the transaction? Who's going to enforce it? Sounds decidedly un-libertarian.
I wholeheartedly agree with the poster who said that people respond to incentives, but weather patterns don't. Property rights can be rather complicated, that's why even within anarcho-capitalist visions of society there is the enterprise of law. There is enforcement as well. Civil rights would be enforced the same way that property rights would be enforced, whether you are a classical liberal or an anarcho-capitalist. Therefore, simply because one advocates enforcement of laws does not mean that one isn't a libertarian.
We still need to understand why we even bother respecting other people's property rights, as we decidedly cannot discriminate against others with repect to their property rights. ***If it is perfectly fine to descriminate in the use of one's property rights, then why isn't it fine to discriminate in the advocacy of property rights?*** For example, why is it wrong to enslave some other people on the basis for their race? Why must all people own their bodies rather than some? If you should respect all other people as ones who should actively pursue happiness, which is ultimately the answer to these questions, then it is clear that you should not descriminate against them merely on the basis of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Likewise, I believe that "public accommodations" can be defined rather precisely, probably even better than they are defined in the Civl Rights Act, and I would thereby advocate enforcement of civil rights with respect to public accommodations. There is simply no moral basis for arbitrary descrimination when it comes to these public accommodations. With respect to other aspects of social space, I still think that discrimination can be morally wrong as well, but I don't think that it can be legislated or enforced away except through reputational costs.
Discrimination is not coercion.
Why should all people have property rights, why not just white people? When we descriminate with regard to property rights, that is a more clear instance of coercion.
With regard to civil rights, you don't think that forcefully removing a peaceful black person from a lunch counter simply because he's black isn't coercion?
@edavimail
Denying a black person his property rights is against NAP....
Denying a black person a job based on his race is not against NAP...
As for your second claim... if the owner is racist and wants the black person out of his restaurant, the black person must leave... if he refuses to leave, that is a violation against the owner's property rights.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
A political exchange is coercion no matter what the personal characteristics of the two parties happen to be. There is no necessary connection between (e.g. racial) discrimination and coercion. It is like saying that ice cream should be outlawed simply because some people are willing to steal ice cream but not other goods. There is no necessary connection between ice cream and the propensity for men to steal. Without the coercion, the objection disappears. The same holds for your argument.
And the error in the lunch counter story has already been pointed out.
Overall it seems that you are hugely discriminatory against discrimination. How awkward.
@Isaac
Thanks for your clear post.
I don't expect you to explain everything, but I want to ask you ***why you think the NAP should be upheld?***
The moral basis of civil rights is the same basis for property rights. Property rights are a necessary but not a sufficient basis for upholding a person's rights. The basis for the property rights is that we should respect every person as one who should actively seek happiness.
The restaurant owner has no right to exercise his property rights in a way that does not respect another person as one who should actively seek happiness. Therefore, in so far as he applies his property in a public accommodation, he has *no moral basis* for forcefully removing a peaceful black person from the restaurant simply because the person is black.
Erik
Self-contradiction:
NAP is necessary for rights - no coercion allowed
Restaurant owner cannot exclude people from his restaurant - therefore coercion is necessary
Also, you talk about people who actively seek happiness. Everybody does this; give me a situation in which one aims to act to their own detriment.
What is the *moral basis* for forcefully removing a peaceful black person from the restaurant simply because the person is black?
If you say NAP, then I admire your consistency, but I must ask, what is the moral basis for NAP?
I don't expect anyone to answer this question because it is asking a lot of them.
The question ultimately becomes: what is the moral basis for forcefully preventing me from taking all of your money simply because I'm not you? What is the moral basis for forcefully preventing me from breaking your arm simply because I'm not you? That is nothing less than discrimination!!
The moral basis of the NAP is ultimately utilitarian, but that's another big discussion about which we have already had many threads. It's also likely someone will argue with me now for saying that it's utilitarian.
On discrimination, please read: http://mises.org/books/case_discrimination_block.pdf
Why does the accused racist need to justify his decision to refuse trade with the black person? Must we provide a "moral basis" for every thing we do?
edavidmail,
Why do I think NAP should be upheld? Well, I see the NAP as a system that least contradicts itself. All in all, the NAP has no exceptions.
edavismail:The moral basis of civil rights is the same basis for property rights. Property rights are a necessary but not a sufficient basis for upholding a person's rights. The basis for the property rights is that we should respect every person as one who should actively seek happiness.
I ask you, why is happiness the ultimate goal for the basis of property rights. The basis for property rights is that every person should respect the NAP... I do not see what happiness has to do with anything.
edavidmail:The restaurant owner has no right to exercise his property rights in a way that does not respect another person as one who should actively seek happiness.
Of course he does, it is his property. To further the point about happiness: What I consider happiness for me may not be what you consider to be happiness.
edavismail:Therefore, in so far as he applies his property in a public accommodation, he has *no moral basis* for forcefully removing a peaceful black person from the restaurant simply because the person is black.
he does have a moral basis, and that is the NAP. And what do you mean by 'public accommodation'?
On a side note: in a economical scope, though, it is not a good decision to turn down a person who is willing to pay for your services. If the owner still wants to turn down his services, then so be it, but there is an opportunity cost there. For example, say that the racist owner only wishes to serve Whites. Well, what a great incentive it is for an entrepreneur to invest in a similar business but instead of providing services to only Whites, the entrepreneur provides services to all who is willing to pay for it.
Isaac,
Thanks again for your reply. I also like the NAP for it's logical consistency. It was only after exploring the moral basis of NAP that I came upon an argument for civil rights. I now believe that property rights need to be understood within a larger context of morality alongside civil rights. It will take us too far afield to go into a philosopohical discussion of the moral underpinnings of libertarianism, so perhaps I will start another thread expounding my perspective on that.
perhaps I will start another thread expounding my perspective on that.
That might be very nice, as I'm not really sure what you - or anyone else - mean by the "moral basis" of the NAP or property rights. I started writing an explanation of property rights for my last post, but went with the simple question to save myself some time; I'll let you better explain your thoughts before bringing it up. Basically, I think it's mistaken to depict 'property rights' as if they were designed to pass some moral test, because property and the rules surrounding it evolved alongside our moral tradition.
I do agree, however, that discrimination may be legally prohibited in some instances in some environments, regardless of its fidelity to the NAP/Rothbardian legal code. As I understand it, the English common law has long said that operators of public lodgings have an obligation to serve all customers; though even there, I believe it is largely referring to those businesses granted government charters/monopolies. I'd find it hard to believe that, in our modern world and with our level of wealth, there would be an epidemic of minorities incapable of finding any accommodations whatsoever (because, unless it's a pervasive problem, making and enforcing a new rule is likely seen by most as a waste of resources).
I took 'moral basis' as referring to the question: 'why should this be?' or 'why should I do this rather than that?" in this case in relation to the NAP, e.g. "Why should I let you keep the dollar you're holding rather than take it from you?", "Why should someone be allowed to exclude someone else from their lunch counter?"
edavismail,
Well the claim that there has to be a larger context of morality alongside the NAP is nothing new, it is a claim held by a lot of 'left libertarians'. The problem I see there is this: when you add more stuff alongside the NAP, you are more than likely going to contradict the NAP. And you said you like the logical consistency of the NAP but if you also advocate adding on to the axiom, well then you ruin the whole point of the NAP. I look forward in reading your thread detailing your views though...
Why is discrimination illegal for SELLERS of a product or service but not for BUYERS of the very same product or service? If I’m a white barber, should a black man who clearly needs a trim be allowed to go down the street to a black barber, without being questioned by the government? I think not. He’s probably discriminating against me because of the color of my skin. If I’m a white restaurant owner, should a black person be allowed to pass up my restaurant in favor of one owned by someone he considers his “brother?” I think not. He and every other citizen (and illegal alien) should be monitored by the federal government to make sure he’s fairly and equitably distributing his dollars among ALL business owners, regardless of race, sex, religion, or presence/absence of offensive tattoos. We catch only a small fraction of immoral and insidious discrimination when we examine the behavior of sellers while completely ignoring the behavior of the much more numerous buyers.
RBrown: Why is discrimination illegal for SELLERS of a product or service but not for BUYERS of the very same product or service? If I’m a white barber, should a black man who clearly needs a trim be allowed to go down the street to a black barber, without being questioned by the government? I think not. He’s probably discriminating against me because of the color of my skin. If I’m a white restaurant owner, should a black person be allowed to pass up my restaurant in favor of one owned by someone he considers his “brother?” I think not. He and every other citizen (and illegal alien) should be monitored by the federal government to make sure he’s fairly and equitably distributing his dollars among ALL business owners, regardless of race, sex, religion, or presence/absence of offensive tattoos. We catch only a small fraction of immoral and insidious discrimination when we examine the behavior of sellers while completely ignoring the behavior of the much more numerous buyers.
Is this a serious post or a joke. Because to be frank, this made me laugh because of its absurdity
Don't you agree that at least 95% of "discrimination" is perpetrated by the buyers of products and services, rather than the sellers?
People do it all the time. They patronise one business instead of another, and the feds give them a pass. Maybe the cashier wears a piercing in her nose, so you don't buy gas or cigarettes at that place. Maybe your REAL reason is that she's Asian. We can't be sure. The problem really needs to be addressed by a federal agency.
I am not sure that your percentile is accurate. nevertheless, I am in the side in favor for individuals to discriminate... On top of that, central planning (federal agency) does nothing to help reduce this... the market is a far better medicine....
Plus, forcing people on how to spend their money kind of defeats the purpose of individual choice in the market. Your solution completely ignores economic laws. I think someone needs to read Economics in One Lesson by Good Ol' Henry Hazlitt