Recently, while watching an interview on Hardball via youtube.com I chanced upon a segment featuring Presidential candidate Ron Paul when a very interesting, and very controversial, topic came up for debate; the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The questions was raised, should business owners be allowed to deny service to people they do not wish to serve, even on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc? Not in the moral sense, of course it is not morally correct to deny service to anyone based on something as frivolous as race, but does the federal government, or any government for that matter, have the right to dictate to private business owners who they should and should not serve? You can see the interview here.
First of all, I need to make it absolutely clear that the Civil Rights Act did a lot of great things for this nation. It ended government sanctioned racism by stopping Jim Crow Laws in the south, laws that were already unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment and, in the strictest sense, required no new legislation to be gotten rid of. Jim Crow laws against drinking from public fountains, riding on public busses, attending certain public schools, were put to an end as they should have been by the Civil Rights Act. In this case the Civil Rights Act merely enforced the 14th amendment which was abused since the time of its passing in 1868. It is ironic that the government of the time seemed more concerned with fighting deadly and unconstitutional wars in Korea and Vietnam than doing its job and protecting the civil rights of its citizens all the way up to 1964, but that is a topic for another day. Ending Jim Crow Laws was indeed an important step for our nation moving forward to end state sponsored racism.
Where the Civil Rights Act got it wrong was when it took the same standard placed upon federal, state, and local governments, and placed them on private property owners as well. Private property is a sacred right to any nation that wishes to be, and remain, free. It’s one of the corner stones of our society sitting side by side with other important rights such as the right to free speech, religion, assembly, the right to vote, etc. To be secure in one’s possession, estate, and body is one of the most vital rights anyone can enjoy.
So in regards to the question, should business owners have the right to deny service to an individual based on race, I believe the answer is yes. The reasoning behind this position is really quite simple for those willing to put aside the emotional block that prevents honest intellectual discussion. If we place the same priority on property rights that we do upon free speech and religion, than really the only choice would be to answer yes to this question as well. Let me try to make an analogy. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard liberal minded individuals speak out against the hate filled rhetoric of groups such as Westbro Baptist Church and yet still defend their right to protest at soldier funerals. Even most conservatives I know would begrudgingly admit that these kinds of groups do have an inherent right to spew their intolerant hate, even in the vicinity of a funeral.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Voltaire
These words ring true to many Americans, and it is a sentiment that does not only apply to the right to free speech. I may not agree with a Muslims religious point of view, but I will still fight for him to hold that point of view. I may not agree with certain people’s protests, but I will still defend their right to protest.
We defend every day the rights of neo Nazi’s, the KKK, Black Panthers, Westbro Baptist Church, etc. not because we agree with them or because we want them to continue with what they are doing, but because we understand that we do not have freedom of speech so we can discuss the weather. On the contrary. We have freedom of speech so we can discuss controversial topics, topics others might find offensive, hateful, or insensitive, without the fear of being sent to jail. We protect freedom of speech because we understand, or at least pretend to understand, that liberty for liberty’s sake holds value.
Why then can’t the same standard be applied to private property rights? Why is it so many are willing to defend “to the death” the rights of racists and homophobes to say what they want and yet would deny to them, and us, an equally important freedom? Discrimination when it comes to private property is nothing new; in fact it is perfectly legal in the case of a home or privately owned land. In both those cases the home/land owner can deny access to anyone at any time for any reason without fear of violating the Civil Rights Act. Without a warrant, we can even deny access to police and government officials. We do this even for suspected murderers, rapists, and child abusers. Why is a privately owned business not treated with the same amount of respect? If a racist bar owner wishes to deny service to individuals of a different race then that bar owner should be vilified and boycotted by citizens in the private sector, not criminalized by politicians in Washington who are given no constitutional authority to dictate matters of private property within the states anyway. In the same way that freedom of speech is not protected so we can talk about the weather, private property rights aren’t protected merely so we can have a place to put our stuff, private property exists for the very reason of denying access to people we wish to keep out. The only difference between a private home and a private business is that the owner of a business is trying to make a profit through consensual economic transactions with others. Once the element of choosing who and who not to do business with is taken away it is no longer a willing transaction but one forced upon the seller. Imagine if the same standards were placed on the consumer as well, and we were forced to buy from venders of certain races in order to give those venders a “fair” level of competition?
We all find racism despicable (well, most of us anyway) but that is what freedom is all about, putting up with the scum of the earth and allowing them to enjoy their freedoms in the same way the rest of us are allowed to enjoy ours. If no one’s rights are violated by a person’s actions, I don’t believe those actions, even if the motives are despicable, should be made illegal. A private business owner denying service on the basis of race falls into this category.
Freedom is a wonderful thing, but freedom comes with a price; a price we must all pay in its defense. The price is that we must tolerate the hateful speech and nonviolent actions of others with bigoted points of view no matter how offensive and wrong they may be. There is no question any business owner who tries to deny service to members of another race would immediacy lose business, but it is not up to the government to decide such things. It is up to the people through their choice of commerce to decide if that business should stay open or not.
That is what freedom is all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment