Political Theory

Re: Property Rights and Sit-ins

Solomon — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:36:52 GMT

I think by "public private" property he means private property for which a non-owner's use (within limits) is generally allowed without explicit consent by the owner e.g. as he mentions you may walk into many or most restaurants without actually speaking to the owner or even a manager in advance, whereas most people require others to ask permission for use of their house.

Re: Property Rights and Sit-ins

Paul — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:18:57 GMT

Andrew:

I completly agree with this.

I like to divide property into four situations: private private( your house), public private( business such as resturants), private public( military bases), and public public( parks, streets).

What's the distinction between what you're calling "private" and "public private"? There's nothing at all "public" about the "public private".

Re: Property Rights and Sit-ins

Andrew — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:26:56 GMT

I completly agree with this.

I like to divide property into four situations: private private( your house), public private( business such as resturants), private public( military bases), and public public( parks, streets).

Considering it is public private property, the sit ins were tresspassing on private property. I think the whole justification for un segragated businesses is a lead to totalitarianism. If a racist refuses to let a black man in his house that is fine. But when it is the racist's cafe, it is a crime!

The free market would greatly reduce racism, by looking at skill, not skin. But a person should be free to open a "Whites only resturant". Granted he would have few customers, but some people are extremely racist and don't want to eat near blacks. This would serve those people. Plus it would reduce racial undercurrents of forced intergration.

I view one's resturant like a private club. The owner or club has certain criteria for membership. Forced intergration and acceptance and affirmative action is absurd. To take to it's logical extreme, the State would force the KKK to have a black man join their club if he wanted to

Property Rights and Sit-ins

mr_anonymous — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:37:15 GMT

Hey guys I would like to bring up the Civil Rights Movement again, but in a different context. Martin Luther King Jr. made the passive resistance movement popular during the late 50s and 60s. I understand and support the Bus Boycotts and and demonstrations/protests. However, I am not sure about the famous "sit ins" that are praised. In one specific example I read, it stated that a couple of brave young black men sat down in a small southern diner and refused to leave after they were declined business. This triggered the sit in movement. I think that sit ins are a violation of property rights because the owner of a business should be able to chose who he wants to do business with. Therefore, if the owner doesnt want to do business with somebody and tells them to get out of his business and they dont, they are now trespassing on his private property. The way I see it, this is no different than if an unwanted house guest refused to leave after the owner of the house asked them too. I am obviously not for segregation and I also am not a racist, but I find it amazing that if I were to say this to somebody outside the mises forums, I would be called a racist. I find it absurd that a business owner would forfeit a chance to make a profit off of somebody just because they are black, but if they want to in their own business, they should have every right to.

The most frustrating part of this is that many people consider private businesses to have to follow the same laws as public property. I am all for equality and all that jazz in public works and public works only.

I would like to see what everybody thinks about this issue...