Friday, May 21, 2010

A rather important point

In the libertarian universe[1], it's a terrible affront to liberty to force a businessman to accept black customers. It is entirely acceptable to send a black man to jail for trespassing if he should try and force the matter.[2]

[1] I know there are lefty small-government types. To avoid confusion, I tend to call them anarchists in the Emma Goldman variety. Rand, and the white, wealthy conservatives who are uber-concerned about the Civil Rights Act, are libertarians.

[2] This is especially relevant in an age--like the 1950s, and increasingly today--where public services were/are delivered by private means. For example, Rosa Parks was riding a privately-owned bus (delivering a public service in contract to a city government) when she refused to give up her seat.

5 comments:

R.B. Glennie said...

*In the libertarian universe, it's a terrible affront to liberty to force a businessman to accept black customers. It is entirely acceptable to send a black man to jail for trespassing if he should try and force the matter.*

You may disagree with Rand Paul's assertion, but don't mischaracterize what he believes.

Paul has said he is against anyone denying service to customers based on their race - and he is strongly in favour of measures from the 1964 Civil rights act which banned discrimination in the disposition of government services (i.e. schools, hospitals, etc) - but he is also against the state telling private individuals whom they must and must not serve...

As I said, you can be against that, but don't try in the manner of Senator McCarthy, smear him with opinions that are not his.

john said...

"he is strongly in favour of measures from the 1964 Civil rights act which banned discrimination in the disposition of government services (i.e. schools, hospitals, etc) - but he is also against the state telling private individuals whom they must and must not serve..."

Paul wants a distinction without a difference. If a private business owner can still rely on the force of law to protect his property, including deciding who he can and cannot serve, then it's the state being used in service of racism.

R.B. Glennie said...

"...a distinction without a difference..."

Thanks "John", you should catch up on new catch-phrases.

now the fisking -

*If a private business owner can still rely on the force of law to protect his property, including deciding who he can and cannot serve, then it's the state being used in service of racism.*

Sorry, "John", are you saying that a private business owner cannot `rely on the force of law to protect his property'?

So anyone can walk in and shoplift a shopowners goods, and he `can't rely on the force of law'?

Someone wants to firebomb his (or her) storefront, and s/he can't `rely on the force of law'?

This is a remarkable theory of `civil rights' you've come up with here, I must say.

Further, a store-owner `cannot decide whom he will serve'? Again, this is a very remarkable legal theory you've evidently picked up from someone's summary of Howard Zimm.

I see the problem is that you need a very severe educating about just about everything...

Sadly, you're not even the intellectual peer of Sen McCarthy.

Noumenon said...

I don't really see why the white owner in Ezra's example should have to get the law involved. He simply doesn't bring the black man his dinner. He doesn't need to escalate it any further, and can get the black man removed later for "loitering".

A bus would make a better example since someone on a bus can't be denied service without being physically accosted.

Rev.Paperboy said...

" Rand, and the white, wealthy conservatives who are uber-concerned about the Civil Rights Act, are libertarians."

No, Rand and his pals are assholes. Libertarians should be embarrassed by them --I'm looking at you RB Glennie and Co.