Glen Contrarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,688
- Reaction score
- 8,046
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Which is more important: the "right" to discriminate, or freedom from discrimination?
Remember, you can't have both. If a business refuses to serve someone because he's black, and he refuses to leave and the business calls the cops to enforce their "right"...it is at that moment that we have government-enforced racism.
Is that really what we want?
This is one of the few subjects on which I disagree with many of my fellow libertarians. I think the benefit of (most) anti-discrimination laws is ultimately worth the small sacrifice of some people's liberty.
If you want to open your business to the public, that is exactly what you're going to have to do.
Which is more important: the "right" to discriminate, or freedom from discrimination?
Remember, you can't have both. If a business refuses to serve someone because he's black, and he refuses to leave and the business calls the cops to enforce their "right"...it is at that moment that we have government-enforced racism.
Is that really what we want?
Which is more important: the "right" to discriminate, or freedom from discrimination?
Remember, you can't have both. If a business refuses to serve someone because he's black, and he refuses to leave and the business calls the cops to enforce their "right"...it is at that moment that we have government-enforced racism.
Is that really what we want?
Which is more important: the "right" to discriminate, or freedom from discrimination?
Remember, you can't have both. If a business refuses to serve someone because he's black, and he refuses to leave and the business calls the cops to enforce their "right"...it is at that moment that we have government-enforced racism.
Is that really what we want?
No. It is at that point that we have a government-enforced right not to be discriminated against.
If you are serving the public, you do not have (and should not have) the right to discriminate. What you do in your home, on the sidewalk, in your car, at establishments other than your own public business/organization is completely up to you. Choose to associate, not to associate, to call names, to defend . . . whatever. But when you have a business or organization that serves the public? Your right to discriminate in your business or organization is over-ridden by my right not to be discriminated against.
That ignores some important variables. My business is doing home repairs/improvements and thus I work (often alone) at the customer's location. I deserve to have the right to refuse to work in unsafe areas regardless of any accusations of racism - if my tools are stolen then my income earning potential disappears.
Except that the government requiring people to have a license to use their property as a business is a rights violation, which effectively voids your entire argument.
This is one of the few subjects on which I disagree with many of my fellow libertarians. I think the benefit of (most) anti-discrimination laws is ultimately worth the small sacrifice of some people's liberty.
If you want to open your business to the public, that is exactly what you're going to have to do.
Well said. And the fact that many libertarians think as your fellow libertarians do is one reason why libertarianism sometimes gets the "tolerates racism" label.
You should be able to decline work regardless of the reason. Just because you have a business doesn't mean you are obligated to engage in commerce with whoever wants to do business with you.
If I own a professional cleaning service, and someone tries to hire me to clean a slaughterhouse, I wouldn't take the job, nor should I be forced to.
I agree people shouldn't be discriminated against, but I also disagree with the concept that you HAVE to accept an offer of commerce with someone because it may offend the other person. Once that becomes the rule, talk about a slippery slope.....
I think that this question begs mention of something that I've noticed over the years: As a general rule (yes, there are exceptions), those on the left tend towards supporting rights over responsibilities, while those on the right tend towards supporting responsibilities over rights.
We have a responsibility to avoid racism and the right to expect freedom from racism. If everyone took their responsibility in this matter to heart, we would have no need for the right to ever be an issue, since there would be no racism to be free from. The problem is that we have two groups of people who make this impossible: The first and most obvious are those who shirk their responsibility and carry out racist acts. These are easy to spot and are, in this country, becoming a dying breed. The other is those who use the right be free from racism as a tool to gain that which they have no right to. These are more difficult to spot, but are a growing group. They have the stamp of approval from far too many people who put rights above responsibilities, so they get a pass on their abuse of their right.
What am I supposed to do with that, Henrin? :lol:
Oh, okay, how about two rights violations don't make a rights violation right? (Yeah, that's it.)
That ignores some important variables. My business is doing home repairs/improvements and thus I work (often alone) at the customer's location. I deserve to have the right to refuse to work in unsafe areas regardless of any accusations of racism - if my tools are stolen then my income earning potential disappears.
Your argument is invalid if the license you're holding them to is a right violation itself. Since making people get approval from the state to practice their rights is clearly a right violation, you're argument is invalid. There is of course no right violation by refusing to do business with someone, so I'm not sure how your argument here applies.
The right to property, labor, and association is more important than some idiotic idea that you have the right to force other people to do your bidding.
You should be able to decline work regardless of the reason. Just because you have a business doesn't mean you are obligated to engage in commerce with whoever wants to do business with you.
If I own a professional cleaning service, and someone tries to hire me to clean a slaughterhouse, I wouldn't take the job, nor should I be forced to.
I agree people shouldn't be discriminated against, but I also disagree with the concept that you HAVE to accept an offer of commerce with someone because it may offend the other person. Once that becomes the rule, talk about a slippery slope.....
And that's not how the law is enforced. To use an easy example, if you refuse to do business with someone who walks through your door because they're Jewish? You've violated the law . . . whether he owns a slaughterhouse or not.
Hear, hearNo. It is at that point that we have a government-enforced right not to be discriminated against.
If you are serving the public, you do not have (and should not have) the right to discriminate. What you do in your home, on the sidewalk, in your car, at establishments other than your own public business/organization is completely up to you. Choose to associate, not to associate, to call names, to defend . . . whatever. But when you have a business or organization that serves the public? Your right to discriminate in your business or organization is over-ridden by my right not to be discriminated against.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?