The myth of "private ownership".

[Atticus]

Now that Rand Paul and John Stossel have been pressed to explain their criticism of the Civil Rights Act, they have tried to make it clear that, "of course" they abhor racism, but they are just men of principle who believe in "private ownership" rights.

This is such obvious horseshit that anyone who had a conscience would feel guilty for having thought it, let alone having said it out loud!

Here is the extent of valid "private ownership" rights: you absolutely have the right to exclude anyone you don't like, for any reason, from your private residence. You are free to sit there, by yourself or with others, and hate to your heart's content.

But, if you own a business, you have no corresponding "private ownership rights" with respect to it. Businesses are inherently in the public realm. They serve customers who travel to them on public roads and sidewalks. They are protected by publicly financed police departments and fire departments in a nation whose borders and shores are protected by the US military forces. And, they happily accept US legal tender, backed by public taxes, as compensation for their goods and services. Accordingly, businesses have no right to discriminate against any class or race or gender or sexual orientation.

These small men, in an effort to somehow justify what amounts to hatred of their fellow men, simply manufacture facts out of whole cloth and peddle them to the inattentive and those with similar hatreds in need of camouflage.

[LiberalLoner]

1. Absolutely spot on. n/t

[JuniperLea]

2. At the beach you'll see signs...

"No shirt/shoes, no service."

I think it's acceptable for a business to refuse service for many, many reasons. A barkeep, for example, is duty bound to refuse service to someone who is already three sheets to the wind... and for OSHA reasons, no shirt/no shoes is reasonable as well. If you are making a loud nuisance of yourself in a movie theater and impeding the movie enjoyment for other paying customers, by all means, throw the bum out!

Skin color is NOT a reason to refuse service... this is where these idiots get it wrong. There is no thin line or grey area between these issues... they're blatant.

[Atticus]

4. Great examples. In general, we are free to discriminate against people if our

dicrimination is based on factors which CAN BE CHANGED. You can put on shirt or shoes if a business requires them. You can quiet down or stop cussing if that's the problem. You could even take off your "Worst President Ever" tee-shirt with Bush's portrait on it, if you wanted to (I refused and left the "establishment").

But, you can't change your race, or your gender or your sexual orientation. And, you can't make me leave because I'm black, or female or gay.

Klansmen in button-down collars are still Klansmen.

[JuniperLea]

7. Perfect!

Yes, the fact that some things can be changed and others cannot, is absolutely the deciding factor, IMHO.

[AngryAmish]

9. Can you discriminate against a person based on their religion?

That is changeable.

on edit: Or because they are fat? That is changeable.

[Atticus]

11. I am not an authority on all of the nuances of permissible versus impermissible

dicrimination, but I think the answer to your question about religion is "sort of". I don't think you can discriminate against someone simply because of their beliefs, but we definitely discriminate, often by specific statutes or ordinances, against certain religious practices. Polygamy, animal sacrifice, the wearing of masks and denying life-saving medical care to children are some examples of religious practices which we prohibit.

As for fat people, again, the answer is "sort of". Clothing costs more for XXXL sizes, for example. And, theaters are not required to provide seating for the morbidly obese.

[TampaAnimus2010]

12. or even political preferences?

Can you refuse to serve repugs? :)

[terrapinwelcher]

5. It's Certainly a Stupid Reason to Deny Service

But honestly, so what? All kinds of despicable behavior are allowed under the law. Even the idiot skinheads have free speech rights. Regardless, the point is moot anyway as the law doesn't allow for that kind of discrimination. But that doesn't mean it won't ever be a slippery slope from there. Once government has the authority in any arena to tell you what you can or cannot do, there is always a potential for abuse. That doesn't mean that government is bad. Government is neutral. The people who mandate from it are what ultimately makes it good or bad. Just hope that the people who agree with you stay in power. Because once someone else takes control, the authority to use that power still exists, but possibly without the prior restraint of the previous one in charge.

[fishwax]

23. lol -- the slippery slope of the Civil Rights Act

:eyes:

on edit: Tombstoned, I see ...

[dkf]

3. I have to admit that I've never considered what a person can control in their private business that

Is considered a public area.

Why can't I do as I please if the area is considered public? Can I bring my drink in even if the store says no drinks allowed? Is this a request that I do not have to abide by or just a request I can decline to follow?

It's a curious intellectual exercise IMO.

[TampaAnimus2010]

13. I think thats why Rand brought up the gun argument...

If the law says its OK to carry a gun in public, does that mean it's OK to carry one into someones business even against their wishes?

[dkf]

22. I wonder why we are shocked that a libertarian would believe that government ought not to

Get involved in areas like this. They believe in lots of stuff that is out of the mainstream. So much of government is settled law that many of us never even considered the pros and cons of.

I think that because there is a culture where personal morality is no longer prized that government laws have become the arbiter of acceptability. That isn't good for society though because what is legal isn't necessarily right or ethical.

And then many people have decided they can break laws they don't agree with or find necessary.

Because people have become personally unethical the law is needed even more. That is why libertarianism won't work nowadays.

[Kievan Rus]

6. Bbbbb...but...but...THAT'S SOCIALISM!

:sarcasm:

[political_Dem]

8. The myth of private ownership is also about white privilege and power.

When you've benefited from a culture that elevates your status amongst other races of people while instilling you with a notion of superiority, the belief of "private ownership" is par for the course.

And "private ownership" in this stance means an instantaneous "rule" over everything that society has to offer the person of the dominant culture. They don't worry about discrimination because they do the discriminating. They don't worry about social exclusion because they do the social excluding. Of course, they don't worry about being "lesser than". Society compensates for their inadequacies to the point of ignoring them. They don't worry about the law because the law almost always works for them and no one else outside their utopian world of the privileged.

When society takes care of your every need by having everything at your beck and call, you do have the sense of "owning" everything private and public.

It's not surprising to me that Rand Paul would say such a thing even though it was a pile of BS. To him, laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is encroaching upon his privilege and supremacy as a white male. He acts as if it causes him searing pain to have a little bit of humility and humanity in order to supply service to Black Americans (and by extension, people of color). After all, as a member of the old boys club, he must not have any discomfort.

That's why the Teabaggers' bleats of "getting their country back" appeal to him. If the Teabaggers are successful, Rand Paul and his ilk are placed on top of the pedestal in society once that Kenyan Muslim is sent packing out of the country with his fake birth certificate.

Subsequently once "America is restored", he would never go for anything that debases the stature of people like himself within America. Freedom only applies to people like him. In this manner, the restoration of his patriarchal power would be like revisiting the fifties.

[Kitty Herder]

10. +1

[TampaAnimus2010]

14. As much as I want to agree with you...

The logic doesn't hold. You cant say a business isn't private because....

They are protected by publicly financed police departments and fire departments in a nation whose borders and shores are protected by the US military forces. And, they happily accept US legal tender, backed by public taxes, as compensation for their goods and services.

My house is also "protected by publicly financed police departments and fire departments in a nation whose borders and shores are protected by the US military forces." I too "accept US legal tender, backed by public taxes, as compensation for their goods and services". It doesn't mean my house is a public area.

There are a number of reasons why it's wrong for a business to discriminate, but this isn't one of them. I'm just saying this so you can correct the logic before some repug or libertarian calls you on it.

[Atticus]

15. You've disregarded two important clauses in my OP: "they serve customers---" and

"they happily accept---compensation--"

While our law has long acknowledged that "a man's home is his castle", no such status is accorded his tavern or his book store.

And, the very fact that one holds themself out as a for-profit enterprise clearly operates as a surrender of the privacy rights associated with one's "castle". Clearly, just "anyone" is not welcome to enter our homes. But, businesses are legally deemed to "invite" entry by anyone wishing to "do business" with them. Those who enter a shop or restaurant are termed "business invitees".

[TampaAnimus2010]

21. Still...

How is serving customers different from someone coming to visit me at my house? The person going to a business goes there to gain a product or service. The person coming to my house might be coming to pick up an item I am giving them or to enjoy my "services". Maybe I provide entertainment, friendship, or even (gasp) sex! There are business counterparts to those. I might do so to gain financial profit or "psychic" profit. The business and I both find it in our interest to have others come over so we can gain value (financial or otherwise).

Accepting compensation can come in a number of ways. I can gain from a friend financially if they give me currency as a gift, or a loan... Maybe we trade products (my Xbox for your Playstation).

When you say "businesses are legally deemed to "invite" entry by anyone wishing to "do business" with them" - but thats the exact point were trying to determine. It's a circular reference. We are trying to determine if they have the right not to "invite" anyone they wish. You cant really use that as a point of differentiation.

Granted, I'm somewhat taking the devil's advocate position here... but I'm trying to see what you think is the essential difference between a business and any other type of relationship - given that in both cases, we seek to gain value. Why does seeking value trigger invalidation of "property rights" since we all do it?

[Canuckistanian]

16. Exactly the point I heard a radio show caller make

Unless that "private business" is on their own land with a private road, an explicit understanding that cops and firemen WILL NOT GO THERE, the phrase "private business" is meaningless.

Businesses are in the public domain.

[Beausoleil]

17. Businesses are in the public domain.

Especially if they get any tax breaks.

[Robeson]

18. Concise, and spot-on.

[applegrove]

19. Well said. K & R.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

20. Needed commentary,

and very well said. :thumbsup:

[mentalsolstice]

24. KATZENBACH v. McCLUNG, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)

SCOTUS got it right on this one.