Right to Discriminate - Continued

A reader linked an article by Tim Wise in the comments section of my last post.  The title of the post was Rationalizing White Supremacy, Racism, Free Markets and the Morally Obtuse Rand Paul. There is a close up of him holding his temple.

As one of Tim Wise's (did he name himself that?) unmentioned "nary a black libertarian" Larry Elder puts it,

"Constitutional rights extend to both saints and sinners and those in between, no matter the outrage... 

This is freedom 101.

It is this freedom to discriminate that enabled Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson to become a billionaire through the use of race-based programming. It is this freedom that allows the Miss Black America beauty pageant to exclude non-black applicants."

Read his great article here. 


From this very eloquent article written by Lew Rockwell,

"Referencing the great controversy about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Karen De Coster put the issue to rest by turning Rachel Maddow's question on its head. She [Maddow] demanded to know whether a white businessman has the right to refuse service to a black man. Karen asked, does a black businessman have the right to refuse service to a Klan member? "  


I really think this gets to the heart of the subject very quickly.  What does Tim Wise have to say to this I wonder?

  

More from Lew,

"...It is the same with college admissions, church membership, fraternities, civic clubs, and nearly every other association. They all exercise the right to exclude. It is central to the organization of every aspect of life. If this right is denied, what do we get in its place? Coercion and compulsion. People are forced together by the state, with one group required at the point of a gun to serve another group."

Stossel writes in regard to the cries that Fox needs to fire him for his racist comments,

"It wasn't free markets in the South that perpetuated racism. It was government colluding with private individuals (some in the KKK) to intimidate those who would have integrated.
It was private action that started challenging the racists, and it was succeeding—four years before the Civil Rights Act passed."


Tim Wise is undertaking a very important and difficult task.  He is trying through his writing, teaching, and lecturing to eliminate, or at least minimize racism.  I think that is a wonderful thing, and the article he wrote is very clearly written for his point.  Unfortunately, Mr. Wise's point in this case is that all libertarians are white supremacist nut jobs who know absolutely nothing about the way the "real" world works and are morally corrupt weak-minded simps.  Tim Wise is the clearly the product of the states' self propagating education system and is ignorantly suckling on the teat that is government=panacea.  The ridiculusly ingrained confirmation bias that markets=evil is so pervasive in this type of writing, but at least its consistent.

As a friend wrote in an email disscusing this subject


"It was government that institutionalized slavery.
It was government that institutionalized segregation in the south.
It took private citizens and market pressures (Frederich Douglas, ML King, Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, etc.) to overcome these abhorrent injustices"


Reader Tim writes
"I often wonder if such rigid adherence to a way of thinking and focus on consistency can hamper ones ability to react to certain situations and deal with issues"


I think examining this subject with the consistent and principled eye for natural rights and property rights has allowed me to further understand this topic and its relative importance regarding anarcho-capatilism and truly free market economics. I must say, a big reason for that is the reading of links readers have sent and the comments themselves.  Thank you both for that.   


Libertarianism by its very nature is anti-racist!  The focus is on the individual, and the racist focuses on a group. 


Having said all of this, what we are discussing was a small part of a huge law that was passed almost 50 years ago which will never change.  

Hope for Change

                         Can you see any differences?  Point them out if you can.

Follow Up - The Right to Discriminate

The comments made by a reader regarding my most recent post, warrant a reply post, as I believe there is some fundamental confusion regarding this issue.  I am encountering similar misunderstanding in my non-line conversations as well.

The reader writes, "...but the majority of the criticism that I read did not focus on whether or not Paul is racist but on the accuracy of his statements and his understanding of history."
I am not sure what you mean by this.  When Paul said he believes that business owners have the right to discriminate, he was charged with being a racist.  That was the focus of outrage.  As I mentioned in the main post, he strongly supports most of the civil rights legislation.  Let me make this very clear, I do not like Rand Paul and the way he is handling this!  Instead of using his abundant face time on cable news shows to hammer home this one CORRECT point about private property rights, he is sheepishly backing away from his previous statements and acting just like a politician.  This strategy will likely help him get elected, but in doing so his is compromising what principles he appeared to have.  His father would educate and stick to his guns.  I defend the statements he made, not him or his candidacy for Senate.

"...I think it's important to note that he was being criticized by many members of his own party."
I guess that I haven't been clear enough about my disdain for both the Republicans and the Democrats. Republicrats, whats the difference really?  Anytime you can be distanced from either of these parties, it is a good thing.  I'll note that the republicans who were doing this are strictly playing moderate politics, fishing for that optimum number of votes. 

"but Stossel and Paul are simply wrong in believing that free markets would have eliminated problems of extreme discrimination and racism that existed in this country not too long ago."
No one is making this outrages claim.  What Stossel is trying to say is that the market would not allow for this kind widespread racial and religious discrimination in stores and restaurants specifically.  Yes, some backwater business's could succeed with ignorant policies like this, but the majority of restaurant owners who tried would be, as Tom Woods of the Mises Institute say's "boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds."

"I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow, I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary"
This quote you use makes the case for libertarianism!  Jim Crow was LAWS! That's your team, the government.  Those were laws that mandated racial discrimination.  Bill Buckley was no libertarian.

And regarding the ADA, I like what Stossel says about it.  It would be perfect if every business in the land had power ramps and voice activated door handles and escalators in lieu of stairs, but as with candidates, perfect is the enemy of the good.  Which is better, those thing that I just mentioned or the untold jobs lost by the cost of the multitude of mandated insurance policies, the expensive ramps, the ever-glowing exit signs, etc?  I think a lower unemployment rate is more desirable as well as a utilitarian outcome of giving back property rights to the owners of the property.  There will be ramps.  There will be exit signs.  But not everywhere. 

I hope this clarifies some of the points I was trying to make in my previous post

For more on this, see Milton Freidman at 3:08.

The Right to Discriminate

A co-worker the other day asked me about Rand Paul and the "racist" comments he made regarding public/private property.  For those of you who don't know, Rand Paul is running for a senate seat in Kentucky and a week ago he won the republican primary in a landslide.  He is the son of Congressmen Ron Paul (TX), who I have cited in various posts, here, and here.

Immediately after Rand Paul's somewhat surprising victory the other day, the intellectually dishonest media began lambasting him as a racist based on his response during an interview about the civil rights movement.  Basically, he said that he supported the majority of the civil rights legislation, but that the laws concerning private property, ie, resturants, bars, pool halls, etc are unjust.  A business owner should have the right to discriminate if he or she wants to.  As Paul says in the interview, "racism is terrible and always a bad business decision, but the owner the private property should be able to make that decision."

Racism is morally corrupt and ignorant and indeed a poor business decision, but the owner of private property has the right to discriminate if they want to.  Even if it is a "public" place like a cafe, the fact of the matter is the owner of the property has the right to be a fool and discriminate based on race, sex, age, height, the car you drive, and so on and so forth.  Should a there be a law mandating who you let in your home? As soon as we start talking about something like water fountains, public buses and schools, who are all funded with taxpayer dollars and therefore truly public property, then their MUST be laws preventing discrimination.  So Rand Paul is correct on this subject the attacks against him are unfounded.

I only wish Rand could apply these same logical libertarian principals to other subjects, like foreign policy. This is a crucial fork in the intellectual road where he and his father go their own ways.  Ron Paul maintains that foreign military engagements are bad, where his son seems to encourage the ever hawkish "strong national defense," which means at its core that war is good and America needs to be the COP of the world.  He is not the consistent libertarian that I wish he could be, but I certainly maintain that he was correct about a private business owner right to discriminate. 

Check out a clip of the story here and watch Stossel defend this right.