The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Who owns me? Who owns you?

The “Bigotry...” post below generated considerable comment by the normal standards of this venue. I appreciate that and am happy that no one accused me of endorsing the bigoted behavior that I believe should be legal behavior (in spite of the fact that at least some forms of non-aggressive bigoted behavior are not legal behavior).

I am not sure what happens under South Dakota law if one puts a sign on his storefront, “No Indians Allowed.” Maybe someone can tell me if it’s illegal. Companies doing business with the South Dakota or U.S. government may not discriminate against people for a specified variety of reasons, including for how they address God and for their color. Violators are subject to at least civil penalties, and in some cases, I assume, to criminal penalties.

I am a minarchist--in favor of the least possible government with the least possible centralization thereof. I don’t know what “least possible” means. I do know that it is somewhere between where we are and anarchy (absence of government). I am not an anarchist because I know that anarchy is impossible. If there were only two of us left on earth, and if we met, one of us would soon be boss.

Bill Fleming restated my premise by saying, “So, you want a free market state without government? Great. Try Somalia.” Somalia seems to be a free market state with its principle examples of “competitive edge” provided by superior firepower. Success there does not appear to rely on voluntary of exchanges of wealth, goods and services. So, no, that’s not what I want. “Voluntary exchanges” is a good two-word synonym for “libertarianism.”

I don’t think an eight-year boy or girl can be assumed to be competent to contract his/her own life into the sex trade or boiler room. I don’t think any adult has the right to contract it for him or her. I do think that a presumably informed adult has the right to contract himself into any arrangement he wants, assuming all others directly involved are also voluntarily so. Reasonable arguments may be made on behalf of adult-aged people whose mental capacity for comprehending the consequences of the contract is demonstrable. That, in fact, happens all the time.

Most commenters on the Bigotry post recognized that, rather than advocating bigoted behavior, I was presenting a case for less governmental intrusion into our rights to cut deals with each other. As Larken Rose mentioned, "government" sanctioned slavery and "government" sanctioned segregation laws. Government also ended slavery. Government also passed the Civil Rights Act. Government also ruled correctly in “Brown vs Board of Education.” In other words, the U.S. government ignored the constitution until it decided to start obeying it. And I’m not talking about some ambiguous term like “general welfare;” slavery and segregation (at least associated with government-funded entities) were as blatant violations of our constitution as have ever been exhibited.

Minarchists, including me, approach this from the perspective that government has intruded too much on our abilities to cut deals with each other, while not providing the protection we deserve from those who fail to observe the voluntary portion of the deal-cutting contract. We think that one of the best ways to get government to do a better job protecting us would be to divest it of every possible responsibility dealing with interfering with our rights to voluntarily cut deals.

That would include granting jerks the right to be jerks, granting the jerk’s right to deny his services or products to anyone he chooses, and granting him also his right to accept whatever peaceful punishment (such as a boycott and picket lines) the community chooses to bestow on him. Unless he’s content with a fraction of the trade he could be doing, he’s likely to stop being so visually a jerk. Anyone can, after all, attempt to capitalize on the market niche provided by a jerk competitor who excludes a whole market demographic.

Politics is the continuous argument over who gets to do what to whom. Life is, among other attributes, a process of our trading things of value amongst each other. Government would serve us better if it allowed us to do so with as little interference as possible, giving us more say in what we are willing to pay for in the way of protection of the voluntary part of our involvement in exchanges, and quit trying to view every sort of exchange as an opportunity to skim some profit and calling it taxes and saying it’s for our own good.

24 comments:

George Wallace said...

"I am not sure what happens under South Dakota law if one puts a sign on his storefront, “No Indians Allowed.” Maybe someone can tell me if it’s illegal."

It's patently unconstitutional - if your store pretends to be "open to the public". In holding the store open to the public, a storekeep creates a pseudo-public space. It is subject to the reasonable accommodations and equal protections afforded other public spaces.

On the other hand, if your storekeep opens a "private store" where one must have a membership and is subject to other class critera - then the storekeep can be as big of bigot as s/he wants. But the storekeep will forfeit some legal protections. A modern example is the few remaining white-only country clubs, etc.

This is not legal advice; consult your attorney.

Disgusted with it all said...

Who owns me? According to the fking health insurance company, they do! Farmers blessed me with a 30% raise in premium this month! And we're worried about skin color and cultural differences?
How about "No insurance companies or other thieves allowed here!"

Braden said...

"This is not legal advice; consult your attorney."

Well I'm not an attorney, yet. In-training, I guess you could say. The sign "No Indians" would probably not be illegal, although I'm sure the police would "politely request" you to take it down. If someone came into the store and they were refused service, that is when it becomes illegal according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II. Katzenbach v. McClung provides a similar fact pattern, and the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Congress can ban disrimination in restaurants, basing their decision on the Interstate Commerce and Equal Protection clauses.

To me, Mr. Newland's approach to dealing with disrimination seems idealistic. Sure, people would protest the restaurant. But other business owners would likely retaliate with signs like "Stay Away Whitey", which would be followed by more protests... and next thing you know our society returns to the 1950's. No thanks.

Restaurants and hotels are different enterprises then a plumbing service would be. Restaurants and hotels market themselves as public places. When you're a public place, you're not allowed to determine which members of the public you want to allow in and which you want to keep out. Whereas if you're a plumber, choosing not to render you're services to anyone who is a Boston Celtics fan would not only be legal, it would be highly recommended by me. Go Lakers.

Braden said...

"This is not legal advice; consult your attorney."

Well I'm not an attorney, yet. In-training, I guess you could say. The sign "No Indians" would probably not be illegal, although I'm sure the police would "politely request" you to take it down. If someone came into the store and they were refused service, that is when it becomes illegal according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II. Katzenbach v. McClung provides a similar fact pattern, and the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Congress can ban disrimination in restaurants, basing their decision on the Interstate Commerce and Equal Protection clauses.

To me, Mr. Newland's approach to dealing with disrimination seems idealistic. Sure, people would protest the restaurant. But other business owners would likely retaliate with signs like "Stay Away Whitey", which would be followed by more protests... and next thing you know our society returns to the 1950's. No thanks.

Restaurants and hotels are different enterprises then a plumbing service would be. Restaurants and hotels market themselves as public places. When you're a public place, you're not allowed to determine which members of the public you want to allow in and which you want to keep out. Whereas if you're a plumber, choosing not to render you're services to anyone who is a Boston Celtics fan would not only be legal, it would be highly recommended by me. Go Lakers.

Braden said...

Ooops... didn't see it get posted the first time. You can delete one, and this.

Thad Wasson said...

Most of the Rapid City downtown merchants will not allow the general public to use their restrooms. Almost all will not accept credit. There are ways to keep those out that you wish to keep out, regardless of any federal, state or local law.

Bill Fleming said...

Great ad campaign: "Look, I don't have to serve you sh*t if I don't feel like it. So watch your step, a**hole."

Probably sell a whole bunch of stuff that way.

And here I always thought Libertarians were pro-bidness.

;^).

Bob Newland said...

Most likely, Braden, no business owner would be so stupid as to exclude anyone who might drop a dollar in his store.

And Bill F., often I don't understand what you are trying to say. We would not be likely to have to put up with a business owner who advertised as you suggest for long, because that person appears to be solely interested in going broke, in which case any ad agency, even Hot Pink Ink, would be happy to assist him. After all, the ad agency down the street will even if Hot Pink won't.

Libertarians are pro choice. In everything.

larry kurtz said...

Bob, ip sees your madness.

Still trying to find Quark's speech to Hu-mon, Sisko, about the Rules of Aquisitiion. Maybe start here and I'll find it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi

Bob Newland said...

Ahhhh, Larry K., now I know who designed Social Security. Who knew that FDR consulted the Ferengi before you exposed it?

larry kurtz said...

I am convinced I have never had an original thought.

Mind is just a synthesis of that which has come before ie. only so many notes can be heard by the human ear; music, just differing combinations of that which all humans know. Genius is doing it in a harmony previously undone.

Bill, "distism" was my favorite word verification. This one is "rains"

Bill Fleming said...

Bob, I'm trying to say that some Libertarian ideas are also bad business ideas. How could I have been more clear?

Here's another angle. We can both do anything we want to with our property under a Libertarian law with no government intrusion, right?

Okay, say you live in a neighborhood where homes are valued at $300k. You have your new mortgage for that amount and about $50k in equity built up when I move in next door and start trashing my place. Weeds grow, I bring in a bunch of yard junk, people running around half naked in the yard. A totally bad scene.

Now nobody want's to move into that neighborhood, so your property value drops.

What to do, Bob?

I just lost you $50k. Don't like it? Tough.

See what I mean now? Some libertarian ideas can hurt you.

Bob Newland said...

Bill, I think your scenario is quite unlikely, although not impossible. You buy a $300k house next to mine, then work as hard as you can to destroy its value? Why? To prove that the neighborhood needs to have standards laws? To destroy my equity? Makes no sense.

How 'bout this? I'm black and I and several of my black friends have money. We all buy $300k houses in the block that contains your $300k house. All houses within ten blocks drop in value by 25%.

A neighborhood covenant, a perfectly libertarian solution, would begin to fix your trashed-yard scenario. It would probably be illegal, though, to apply a covenant to try to prevent racial integration in our neighborhood.

Bill Fleming said...

Who's going to enforce the covenant? Under a minarchist libertarian construct, it would be illegal.

Bob Newland said...

A covenant is a contract. We have no problem with voluntary contracts, or the enforcement thereof.

Bill Fleming said...

A contract with whom? And enforced by whom? Sounds like government involvement to me, Bob. Sorry.

Bill Fleming said...

Let's flesh out the scenario a little. There are no covenants in place under my initial schema. I buy the house next to you and start trashing the place (from your perspective, not necessarily mine.) Now you want a covenant? Why would I sign that? Who could make me sign it?

Bob Newland said...

Bill, perhaps you fail to grasp the difference in meaning between "minimum" and "absence". I have clearly said that I am not an anarchist.

I support a law enforcement system that enforces reasonable laws. I support a court system that acts as a disinterested arbiter of disputes.

Your scenario gets weird. You buy the house next to mine and start trashing the place (from my perspective, not necessarily yours).

You make it impossible for me to form a response. I think a little crafty mailbox painted pink and blue with "The Flemings" in scrollsaw script hanging off it is trashy, and destroys the value of all neighboring houses. I doubt that any system you can devise except a covenant specifically prohibiting such indulgences will remedy the mailbox devaluation scenario.

And a covenant only works if it has been negotiated prior to finalization of your purchase.

Now let's play a new game. Why don't you tell me how maxarchism can solve the problem of my moving in next to you with the specific goal of destroying the value of my property just to destroy your equity.

Bill Fleming said...

So you're dodging my question, Bob? Or are you saying you would want laws in place that infringed on my liberty to do as I please with my property as part of your "minarchy" government?

I'm just trying to get to the root of your philosophy so I can better understand it.

Bob Newland said...

Bill, if you really are trying to get at the root of my philosophy, I suggest you go to lp.org and read the platform. Then come back and try to play word games with me that are designed only to attempt to make me lose my temper so you can snigger and say you won the the argument.

Bill Fleming said...

Bob, what? If I won the argument, it's only because you couldn't (or wouldn't) answer the question. And if you can't control your temper, how is that my problem?

Bob Newland said...

I take it, Bill, that you have not bothered to go to http://www.lp.org/platform and educate yourself.

It's plain that you have far more interest in your questions than you have in answers to them.

Bob Newland said...

Assume there's a boom in a tomb in which you can find a broom and a loom.

I support a law enforcement system that enforces reasonable laws. I support a court system that acts as a disinterested arbiter of disputes.

Derek C said...

Bob,

Thanks for having the guts to not shy away from this debate.

Too many conservatives and progressives can't imagine a world where the government doesn't tell the People what they can and cannot do. They assume that everyone else is incapable of participating in "civil society" without being told exactly what is civil.