Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate

[Skorpius]

I feel like this is the question that really sets apart fake Libertarians from real ones.
It is probably the most misunderstood position of Libertarianism.

The logic is that any exchange is voluntary only if both parties agree to it. If one party does not want to deal with another party for whateve reason and they are forced to make an exchange, the transaction was never voluntary in the first place.

The free market has a very good way of eradicating racism because it is generally against business interests to discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (Price discrimination is a different story) - see Gary Becker's contributions

This is a position that is very easy to misrepresent as well, so what do Libertarians think about this particular position? I understand and agree with the logic, but avoid taking the position openly because it is easy to misunderstand.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Sometimes I do think yeah, open discrimination will allow us to see plain and clear who the bad guys are and we can not use their goods and services.

But geographically that's not a good idea, what about the poor fella who lives in a small town and everyone knows he's gay for example and won't sell to him, what's he gonna do then?

Drive 40 miles to the next town over to get his haircut?

I don't even get that anyway, who's got time to deny service to anyone?

I've gotta deal with lots of ****heads I don't like, if I could discriminate against white males between the ages of 18-35 who are four to a room I bloody well would... well guess what?

Tough ****, that's my job.

 

[Samhain]

Sometimes I do think yeah, open discrimination will allow us to see plain and clear who the bad guys are and we can not use their goods and services.

But geographically that's not a good idea, what about the poor fella who lives in a small town and everyone knows he's gay for example and won't sell to him, what's he gonna do then?

Drive 40 miles to the next town over to get his haircut?

I don't even get that anyway, who's got time to deny service to anyone?

I've gotta deal with lots of ****heads I don't like, if I could discriminate against white males between the ages of 18-35 who are four to a room I bloody well would... well guess what?

Tough ****, that's my job.

Except they can discriminate for any non-protected reason. i.e. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads.

 

[AGENT J]

I feel like this is the question that really sets apart fake Libertarians from real ones.
It is probably the most misunderstood position of Libertarianism.

The logic is that any exchange is voluntary only if both parties agree to it. If one party does not want to deal with another party for whateve reason and they are forced to make an exchange, the transaction was never voluntary in the first place.

The free market has a very good way of eradicating racism because it is generally against business interests to discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (Price discrimination is a different story) - see Gary Becker's contributions

This is a position that is very easy to misrepresent as well, so what do Libertarians think about this particular position? I understand and agree with the logic, but avoid taking the position openly because it is easy to misunderstand.

define "private" thats where the issue is for me, some people take private for "personally owned" thats not private in a commercial world and public access world.

I have a mechanics license and work out of a garage on my property where my home is? yes I can discriminate all i want because that is LEGAL.

I buy a commercial corner lot, put up a big sign that says Agent J's auto repair, hours 7am-8pm m-f, with a big open sign . . . no I can not ILLEGALLY discriminate. I have to play by the same rules as EVERYBODY does. I dont get special treatment

if one isnt civil enough to play buy the rules that apply to use all they simply dont get to play

 

[Fletch]

I feel like this is the question that really sets apart fake Libertarians from real ones.
It is probably the most misunderstood position of Libertarianism.

The logic is that any exchange is voluntary only if both parties agree to it. If one party does not want to deal with another party for whateve reason and they are forced to make an exchange, the transaction was never voluntary in the first place.

The free market has a very good way of eradicating racism because it is generally against business interests to discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (Price discrimination is a different story) - see Gary Becker's contributions

This is a position that is very easy to misrepresent as well, so what do Libertarians think about this particular position? I understand and agree with the logic, but avoid taking the position openly because it is easy to misunderstand.

Of course. Freedom of association is a right that every individual has. If I want to hang a sign in front of my business that says 'No Blacks Allowed' I should not be prohibited from doing so.

 

[pbrauer]

Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate

No, of course not. This is covered in the "Public Accomodations" portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/164217-do-you-agree-john-stossel.html

 

[Fletch]

No, of course not. This is covered in the "Public Accomodations" portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/164217-do-you-agree-john-stossel.html

We know what the law says. The question is: what rights you have.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I feel like this is the question that really sets apart fake Libertarians from real ones.
It is probably the most misunderstood position of Libertarianism.

The logic is that any exchange is voluntary only if both parties agree to it. If one party does not want to deal with another party for whateve reason and they are forced to make an exchange, the transaction was never voluntary in the first place.

The free market has a very good way of eradicating racism because it is generally against business interests to discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (Price discrimination is a different story) - see Gary Becker's contributions

This is a position that is very easy to misrepresent as well, so what do Libertarians think about this particular position? I understand and agree with the logic, but avoid taking the position openly because it is easy to misunderstand.

I'd say that's fine provided it was also legal for a jurisdiction to discriminate for any reason what person or entity can set up business in their community. The community is owned by and run by the citizens of that community and their representatives. If a business wants to set up and discriminate, let them do it without access to the power grid, the water supply, the police or fire departments, etc. Seems fair to me.

 

[justabubba]

Of course. Freedom of association is a right that every individual has. If I want to hang a sign in front of my business that says 'No Blacks Allowed' I should not be prohibited from doing so.

you can hang that sign today, no matter
you just cannot act on it - IF you are open to the public at large

 

[Samhain]

you can hang that sign today, no matter
you just cannot act on it - IF you are open to the public at large

what's "public at large"? Doesn't it depend on what your business does? service vs selling

 

[AGENT J]

We know what the law says. The question is: what rights you have.

well in the US thats pretty easy one does not have the right to illegally discriminate or violate the rights of others, we all must play by the same rules

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.​

In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability to community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.) should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

**************************************************


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I think of myself as a Goldwater Conservative quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.



>>>>

 

[justabubba]

what's "public at large"? Doesn't it depend on what your business does? service vs selling

has a list of persons with whom it conducts business privately, rather than to the general public

 

[Unrepresented]

Except they can discriminate for any non-protected reason. i.e. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads.

 

[Samhain]

has a list of persons with whom it conducts business privately, rather than to the general public

So you can create an Asian-Only Home Depot?

 

[AGENT J]

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society.

resolved? I think that is totally the wrong word since we still often hear about illegal discrimination today proving its not resolved

greatly improved from 60 years ago? absolutely Id agree but not resolved by any means

secondly who knows how much of the improvement is strictly based on laws and rights. I personally know people that only dont discriminate because its illegal

lastly do you think thats a legit reason to contemplate its removal or a legit reason why the laws and rights arent needed? I know you said you are for keeping the laws but im just asking.

if rape, murder, molestation, theft, embezzlement, fraud and or assault etc etc dropped to a certain point would it be a good argument to get rid of those laws

 

[Fletch]

you can hang that sign today, no matter
you just cannot act on it - IF you are open to the public at large

Yes, I know what the law says. That's not what this thread is about.

 

[Fletch]

well in the US thats pretty easy one does not have the right to illegally discriminate or violate the rights of others, we all must play by the same rules

Read the OP. The question is SHOULD private businesses be allowed to discriminate. You simply restating what the law says doesn't address that.

 

[matchlight]

I would have my state's public accommodations law apply at least to the two types of businesses covered under common law: innkeepers and common carriers. Denying a person lodging in a remote area on a winter's night or refusing to pick up a person at a rural bus stop, even though he might have an emergency, could get someone killed. It is within a state's police power to prohibit this kind of discrimination by law, to protect the public health and safety. I might extend the protection a little beyond those two traditional categories, but in general I would let private persons discriminate for any reason, both in deciding who to contract with and in deciding who to hire.

I know Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel, and I don't buy the Commerce Clause rationale the Court relied on to uphold the federal public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I realize that after fifty years, those protections have become permanent. The question is how far should state laws expand them, e.g. to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Not very far, I think. The further those laws have expanded, the more they have tended to violate First Amendment rights.

Where an entity cannot reasonably be called a public accommodation, private persons should be almost completely free to discriminate. There is precious little in the Constitution that restricts what private persons may do, the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude being the main exception. I support the right of bigots to hate the living guts of any person for any reason whatever and discriminate as much as they please against anyone in their private associations, however morally despicable I personally may consider their bigotry. That comes with having a free country.

 

[Gaius46]

People should be free to do business with, or not do business with, anyone they like.

And people who are discriminated against should be free to let everyone know that they are discriminated against by a business

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Read the OP.
2.)The question is SHOULD private businesses be allowed to discriminate.
3.) You simply restating what the law says doesn't address that.

1.) already did, ive read it and it doesnt change my answer lol
2.) yes I get that, in the US the law reflects our rights and rights is what the law SHOULD reflect
3.) actually it did 100%

 

[LagerHead]

Sometimes I do think yeah, open discrimination will allow us to see plain and clear who the bad guys are and we can not use their goods and services.

But geographically that's not a good idea, what about the poor fella who lives in a small town and everyone knows he's gay for example and won't sell to him, what's he gonna do then?

Drive 40 miles to the next town over to get his haircut?

I don't even get that anyway, who's got time to deny service to anyone?

I've gotta deal with lots of ****heads I don't like, if I could discriminate against white males between the ages of 18-35 who are four to a room I bloody well would... well guess what?

Tough ****, that's my job.

That's your job because you are paid to do so. Your boss could easily give you the right to hang up on anyone who treats you like an asshole, but the chances are that sites like Yelp and Angie's List would eat you/your business alive. That is the main reason customer service reps take so much abuse. Word of mouth is a powerful form of advertising.

 

[paddymcdougall]

>


In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:
>

You don't live in a small town in a rural area then.

There is one grocery store in my town. Oddly, there are three hardware stores. Not that many restaurants and motels. We were looking for breakfast one morning about 7:30 and there was ONE restaurant open at that hour. ONE.

One hospital too.

No dry cleaner, but one place that will take dry cleaning to the dry cleaner 40 miles away and bring it back.

3 gas stations, but 2 are owned by the same person. The third is only open because the owner doesn't like the other gas station owner so likes to spite him.

 

[Fletch]

1.) already did, ive read it and it doesnt change my answer lol
2.) yes I get that, in the US the law reflects our rights and rights is what the law SHOULD reflect
3.) actually it did 100%

That's absurd. There have been numerous instances in the history of this country where the law emphatically did not reflected our rights and the law subsequently had to be changed. Therefore, arguing that since something is against the law it SHOULD be against the law is not an answer to the question at hand.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Read the OP. The question is SHOULD private businesses be allowed to discriminate. You simply restating what the law says doesn't address that.

I would answer no. Not as long as they are using public roads, police/fire services, utilities, etc.