3 ms·

Let's take his example of whites-only and blacks-only drinking fountains. Would a black person drinking from a whites-only fountain have constituted "initiation

Let's take his example of whites-only and blacks-only drinking fountains. Would a black person drinking from a whites-only fountain have constituted "initiation of force"? And similarly, was Rosa Parks' refusal to vacate her seat an "initiation of force"?

nirvana 15y ago
More context is needed, and preferably one without a racial component. (For instance, the racial rules on Rosa parks bus were put in place by the local government, not a private bus company.) Do you think that a gay couple should be forced to rent out the room they listed on craigslit to an adamant and vocal bigot who hates gays? Freedom of association is a basic human right, correct? I don't have the right to force some woman I like to associate with me if she thinks I'm disgusting. That doesn't change if the reason she thinks I'm disgusting is because I'm black. In the former, I'm just a creep, in the later, she's the bigot. It doesn't really matter. Racism and other bigotry goes away the more free and open an economy is. The companies run by bigots will underperform, and freedom of association goes both ways- you can refuse to do business with them, and a racist business will lose customers from all races. Saying that gays can't get married violates freedom of association, but so does saying that you have to have a minimum wage (its dictating terms of a private relationship.) The passing of such laws, I consider, an initiation of force. PS- I up voted both of your posts. Not sure why you were down voted. I much prefer your attempts to challenge my position on the merits to the ad hominem I've gotten from others.
- guelo 15y ago
  > Racism and other bigotry goes away the more free and open an economy is. That was not true in the racist southern society where the majority of the population was born into a tradition of racism. In a racist society a business will be much more successful by catering to the desire of its customers for white-only water fountains, etc. A business that tries to integrate will suffer a loss of the majority of its customers and that majority is also the wealthier portion. So in such a society a free economy will tend to reinforce existing racism. We needed authoritarian civil rights laws and the threat of force to begin reversing that racism.
  - nirvana 15y ago
    0. You seem to have ignored "the more free and open an economy is." which recognizes both that there are degrees "more free and open" and that these are factors that help it go away. The south to some extent lacked them. 1. In the south, racism was going away. Maybe not as fast as people would like, but it was going away. 2. Much of the racism in the south was perpetrated by governments, not by businesses. 3. The south was, after the civil war, subjugated to the will of the north in a form of (probably racist) enslavement of the entire region. The avoiding of this subjugation is why many free blacks in the south fought on the side of the confederacy during the civil war. (while its notable that the north enslaved people via conscription to fight on their side in the civil war.) At any rate, I wouldn't call the south after the civil war until the 1960s a completely free and open economy. 4. These authoritarian civil rights laws perpetuated racism, they didn't end it. In a way they codified racism by saying "black people can't compete on their own in the market place" which is a racist perspective.
    - guelo 15y ago
      It's interesting how a lot of libertarian theorists also happen to have all these racist historical and social theories.
true_religion 15y ago
Let me respond with my opinion: If a water fountain is a private object, then the owner can pass whatever restrictions he or she wants on its use. However, during the Jim Crow era those restrictions were passed by the government as part of a policy of institutionally enforced segregation. The governments passage of those laws constitutes an "imitation of force" on both the water fountain owners and users.
othermaciej 15y ago
Under a libertarian analysis, that would depend on whether the segregation is imposed by government or by the relevant property owner. If the government mandates segregation, it has initiated force. Violating a private property owner's rules would be initiation of force. Note that in the US, we've never actually tried the system where private discrimination is neither required nor forbidden. We went straight from the mandatory discrimination of Jim Crow to the forbidden discrimination of the Civil Rights Act. So no one really knows how actual freedom of association would work out in practice. It is unfair therefore to try to taint libertarianism as equivalent to Jim Crow, but likewise one should be skeptical of libertarian claims that things would work out all right under such setup.

nirvana 15y ago

More context is needed, and preferably one without a racial component. (For instance, the racial rules on Rosa parks bus were put in place by the local government, not a private bus company.) Do you think that a gay couple should be forced to rent out the room they listed on craigslit to an adamant and vocal bigot who hates gays? Freedom of association is a basic human right, correct? I don't have the right to force some woman I like to associate with me if she thinks I'm disgusting. That doesn't change if the reason she thinks I'm disgusting is because I'm black. In the former, I'm just a creep, in the later, she's the bigot. It doesn't really matter. Racism and other bigotry goes away the more free and open an economy is. The companies run by bigots will underperform, and freedom of association goes both ways- you can refuse to do business with them, and a racist business will lose customers from all races. Saying that gays can't get married violates freedom of association, but so does saying that you have to have a minimum wage (its dictating terms of a private relationship.) The passing of such laws, I consider, an initiation of force. PS- I up voted both of your posts. Not sure why you were down voted. I much prefer your attempts to challenge my position on the merits to the ad hominem I've gotten from others.

guelo 15y ago
> Racism and other bigotry goes away the more free and open an economy is. That was not true in the racist southern society where the majority of the population was born into a tradition of racism. In a racist society a business will be much more successful by catering to the desire of its customers for white-only water fountains, etc. A business that tries to integrate will suffer a loss of the majority of its customers and that majority is also the wealthier portion. So in such a society a free economy will tend to reinforce existing racism. We needed authoritarian civil rights laws and the threat of force to begin reversing that racism.
- nirvana 15y ago
  0. You seem to have ignored "the more free and open an economy is." which recognizes both that there are degrees "more free and open" and that these are factors that help it go away. The south to some extent lacked them. 1. In the south, racism was going away. Maybe not as fast as people would like, but it was going away. 2. Much of the racism in the south was perpetrated by governments, not by businesses. 3. The south was, after the civil war, subjugated to the will of the north in a form of (probably racist) enslavement of the entire region. The avoiding of this subjugation is why many free blacks in the south fought on the side of the confederacy during the civil war. (while its notable that the north enslaved people via conscription to fight on their side in the civil war.) At any rate, I wouldn't call the south after the civil war until the 1960s a completely free and open economy. 4. These authoritarian civil rights laws perpetuated racism, they didn't end it. In a way they codified racism by saying "black people can't compete on their own in the market place" which is a racist perspective.
  - guelo 15y ago
    It's interesting how a lot of libertarian theorists also happen to have all these racist historical and social theories.

true_religion 15y ago

Let me respond with my opinion: If a water fountain is a private object, then the owner can pass whatever restrictions he or she wants on its use. However, during the Jim Crow era those restrictions were passed by the government as part of a policy of institutionally enforced segregation. The governments passage of those laws constitutes an "imitation of force" on both the water fountain owners and users.

othermaciej 15y ago

Under a libertarian analysis, that would depend on whether the segregation is imposed by government or by the relevant property owner. If the government mandates segregation, it has initiated force. Violating a private property owner's rules would be initiation of force. Note that in the US, we've never actually tried the system where private discrimination is neither required nor forbidden. We went straight from the mandatory discrimination of Jim Crow to the forbidden discrimination of the Civil Rights Act. So no one really knows how actual freedom of association would work out in practice. It is unfair therefore to try to taint libertarianism as equivalent to Jim Crow, but likewise one should be skeptical of libertarian claims that things would work out all right under such setup.