sc94597 said:
ofrm1 said:
The only answer to this question must be yes, which is precisely what is wrong with the libertarian position. It's ironic that libertarians use the exact same arguments that racists used to use to defend jim crow laws in the south. This is why people like Rand Paul have effectively said that the Civil Rights Act's provision dealing with private business was essentially a bad idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_qya7w0hs
It's very simple. Just like with any formal system, you create axioms, or exceptions to the rules. Yes, we have the principle of free enterprise, where anyone is allowed to control their business however they wish, including charging whatever prices they wish. Since this principle, when unregulated, results in a state of affairs that is undesirable for society, we regulate it. In the case of private business, it resulted in applying the fourteenth amendment's equal protection under the law to private businesses. The result is businesses now are obligated to accept minorities as patrons, rather than reject them. This is a boon for society. To reject real progress because it flies in the face of your principles is foolish. The progress shouldn't change, your principles should because they're wrong.
|
But if one believes that most discrimination was government mandated, it becomes much less an issue to let private businesses that are racist fail because nobody is not subsidizing their costs to discriminate. I find the libertarian position to be much harsher on racists (and homophobes) to be honest.
|
It has nothing to do with what is harsher on the bigots. It has to do with protecting the rights of minorities in a liberal society.
If Chick Fil A at some point decided to refuse service to gays and there was no law preventing them from doing so, they would not fold. There would be a mass of people that would support the resturaunt out of principle. The same goes with minorities.
This is why principles that guide one's action must be universal principles, like the categorical imperative. Otherwise there will be cases where your principles cannot apply, so you must abandon them, which defeats the purpose of having principles if you abandon them at the drop of a hat.
