Libertarianism = Anti-racism
Individualism abhors bigotry.
Rand Paul’s comments regarding the federal ban on racial discrimination in public accommodations (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II) have brought the libertarian position on civil rights to public attention. (This is odd because Paul insists, “I’m not a libertarian.”)
It’s not been an entirely comfortable experience for libertarians. For obvious reasons libertarians are committed to freedom of association, which of course includes the freedom not to associate, and the right of property owners to set the rules on their property. Yet libertarians don’t want to be mistaken for racists, who have been known to (inconsistently) invoke property rights in defense of racial discrimination. (I say “inconsistently” because historically they did not object to laws requiring segregation.)
Evelyn Beatrice Hall could say, summarizing Voltaire’s views, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But no libertarian I know relishes saying, “I disapprove of your bigotry, but I will defend to the death your right to live by it.”
Yet that is the libertarian position, and we should not shrink from it. Defending the freedom of the virtuous is easy. The test is in defending it for the vicious. What I want to show here, however, is that this is not the entire libertarian position. There’s more, and we do the philosophy – not to mention the cause of freedom – an injustice if we leave out the rest.
Let’s start with a question of some controversy. Should a libertarian even care about racism? (By racism here I mean nonviolent racist acts only.) I am not asking if people who are libertarians should care about racism, but rather: Are there specifically libertarian grounds to care about it?
Some say no, arguing that since liberty is threatened only by the initiation of physical force (and fraud), nonviolent racist conduct – repugnant as it is — is not a libertarian concern. (This is not to say libertarians wouldn’t have other reasons to object.)
But I and others disagree with that claim. I think there are good libertarian grounds to abhor racism – and not only that, but also to publicly object to it and even to take peaceful but vigorous nonstate actions to stop it.
Libertarianism and Racism
What could be a libertarian reason to oppose nonviolent racism? Charles Johnson spelled it out in The Freeman. Libertarianism is a commitment to the nonaggression principle. That principle rests on some justification. Thus it is conceivable that a principle of nonviolent action, such as racism, though not involving the initiation of force and contradicting libertarianism per se, could nevertheless contradict the justification for one’s libertarianism.
For example, a libertarian who holds his or her philosophy out of a conviction that all men and women are (or should be) equal in authority and thus none may subordinate another against his or her will (the most common justification) — that libertarian would naturally object to even nonviolent forms of subordination. Racism is just such a form (though not the only one), since existentially it entails at least an obligatory humiliating deference by members of one racial group to members of the dominant racial group. (The obligatory deference need not always be enforced by physical coercion.)
Seeing fellow human beings locked into a servile role – even if that role is not explicitly maintained by force – properly, reflexively summons in libertarians an urge to object. (I’m reminded of what H. L. Mencken said when asked what he thought of slavery: “I don’t like slavery because I don’t like slaves.”)
Too Close to Violence
Another, related, libertarian reason to oppose nonviolent racism is that it all too easily metamorphoses from subtle intimidation into outright violence. Even in a culture where racial “places” have long been established by custom and require no coercive enforcement, members of a rising generation will sooner or later defiantly reject their assigned place and demand equality of authority. What happens then? It takes little imagination to envision members of the dominant race — even if they have professed a “thin” libertarianism to that point — turning to physical force to protect their “way of life.”
It should go without saying that a libertarian protest of nonviolent racist conduct must not itself be violent. Thus a libertarian campaign against racism in public accommodations should take the form of boycotts, sit-ins, and the like, rather than assault and destruction of property. And if that’s the case, it follows that State action is also beyond the pale, since government is force. Hence the libertarian objection to government bans on segregation in privately owned places.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that ruling out government action would severely limit the scope of protest. As I’ve written elsewhere, lunch counters throughout the American south were being desegregated years before passage of the 1964 Act. How so? Through sit-ins, boycotts, and other kinds of nonviolent, nongovernmental confrontational social action. (Read moving accounts here and here.)
Yes, people got worthwhile things done without government help. Amazing, isn’t it?
Two more points in closing. First, libertarians lose credibility when they pretend to deny the obvious social distinction between a privately owned public place – such as a restaurant – and a privately owned private place – such as a home. We see this too often. A libertarian will challenge a “progressive” thus: “If you really believe there should be laws against whites-only restaurants, to be consistent you should also demand laws against whites-only house parties.”
That’s a lousy argument.
When I walk past a restaurant, in the back of my mind is the thought, “I can go in there.” I have no such thought when I walk past a home. It’s a matter of expectations reasonably derived from the function of the place. Homes and restaurants are alike in some important respects – they’re privately owned – but they’re also different in some important respects. Why deny that?
Of course, it does not follow from this distinction that government should set the rules for the restaurant. The libertarian needs to challenge incorrect inferences from the distinction – not the distinction itself.
Sit-Ins and Trespass
Finally, no doubt someone will have raised an eyebrow at my inclusion of sit-ins in the list of appropriate nonviolent forms of protest against racist conduct. Isn’t a sit-in at a private lunch counter a trespass?
It is — and the students who staged the sit-ins did not resist when they were removed by police. (Sometimes they were beaten by thugs who themselves were not subjected to police action.) The students never forced their way into any establishment. They simply entered, sat well-behaved at the counter, and waited to be served. When told they would not be served, they said through their actions, “You can remove me, but I will not help you.” (Actually, blacks could shop at Woolworth’s and similar stores; they just couldn’t sit at the lunch counters. Boycotts hurt the stores’ bottom lines.)
I could buttress this defense of sit-ins by pointing out that those stores were not operating in a free and competitive market. An entrepreneur who tried to open an integrated lunch counter across the street from Woolworth’s would likely have been thwarted by zoning, licensing, and building-inspection officers. He would have had a hard time buying supplies and equipment because the local White Citizens’ Council (the “respectable” white-collar bigots) would have “suggested” to wholesalers that doing business with the integrationist might be, shall we say, ill-advised. And if the message needed to be underscored, the Ku Klux Klan (with government’s implicit sanction and even participation) was always available for late-night calls.
Did the beneficiaries of that oppressive system really have a good trespass case against the sit-in participants?
Comment by Brad Spangler on 28 May 2010:
It’s also important to understand that the libertarian theory of justice is that violation of the non-aggression principle justifies compulsory restitution for damages. In some cases, it will make sense to voluntarily assume those costs and approach it as a matter of calculation — rather than holding a pseudo-religious view in which one is either in state of grace or held to have fallen from same.
For example, in a stateless society of private law and security, there would be no such thing as a “search warrant”. No private arbitrator wouold be empowered to license burglary or home invasion. Searches for evidence would still happen, though. Investigators would have to do enough of the serious, hard work of a conscientious investigation first in order to make a rational gamble that they could commit a crime to search for evidence and wind up owing less restitution than the subject of the investigation would.
Lunch counter sit-ins were trespassing — but so what, if the restitution owed was trivial in comparison to the larger issue?
Comment by Kevan Barley on 28 May 2010:
The protesters deliberately broke the civil law regarding segregation and violated the store owners’ property rights in order to provoke violent response and gain the power of government coercion for themselves. Libertarianism can learn nothing from this example.
Pingback by Sheldon Richman: Libertarianism = Anti-racism on 28 May 2010:
[...] the full TGIF here. var a2a_config = a2a_config || {}; a2a_config.linkname="Sheldon Richman: Libertarianism = [...]
Comment by Brad Spangler on 28 May 2010:
re: “and gain the power of government coercion for themselves.”
I imagine most would have said they were trying to desegregate lunch counters. Even so, I find your ideas fascinating. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 28 May 2010:
Kevan, nonsense. Unjust “law” is not law. But in many places, integration in public accommodations was not against the law. It was the manager’s rule. My defense of those sit-ins is in my article. The students, who often operated on their own, were not seeking to control the government. They were seeking coffee and perhaps pie, oh and treatment as human beings.
Comment by Ivan on 28 May 2010:
Libertarianism for libertarians. Great article with strong arguments!
“No political system can establish universal rationality by law (or by force). But capitalism is the only system that functions in a way which rewards rationality and penalizes all forms of irrationality, including racism.” Ayn Rand
Pingback by Reading list for Rachel Maddow « disinter on 28 May 2010:
[...] Libertarianism = Anti-racism [...]
Comment by Little Alex on 28 May 2010:
I replied to Mr. Richman on FB:
“Honest question: Doesn’t this whole discussion on the ’64 Act just play as a red herring when almost no business worth bringing up as a significant example is free from direct or indirect nationalized financing?”
To which he replied:
“Alexander, ‘financing’ is not be the right word. But I take your point. In a corporatist mixed economy, no business is without some degree of privilege. Even a small business gets protection from the regulatory and tax barriers to new entrants.”
I responded:
“The quotes are more accurate. ‘Financing’ just happened to be the immediate word to mind as an encompassing identification.
But reasonable arguments for the nullifying and positivistic elements of CRA64 regarding gov’t administered sources of labor and ‘service’ carry over to the existential Title oft scrutinized. How rash is it to say that no existential organization worth significance in this discussion ethically, ought to legally, logically, etc. fit within Title II? When corporate charters are signed with the gov’t, the organization agrees to Art. I, 8:3.
The discussion is seldom taken seriously by anyone in term of golf clubs — odd because it’d be interesting to see the land grants involved in these ultra-exclusive organizations — but to places like hotels, restaurants and the ‘lunch counter’ meme where, in the truly legal sense, within the ‘Primary Objective’ is to profit via exchanging goods and services ‘to the public’, ‘on the open marketplace’, etc.
When equity is staked by ‘the public’, voluntarily or by force, when is it just to use force to influence a for- or non-profit organization’s actions? At what percentage of that equity is a private organization objectively immune from the legitimate use of force?
I hate jumping from C to Z, but this is a serious seed in the argument that existential organizations *ought* to have large rates of equity turned over to those [workers] on the payroll of for-profit organizations.”
Comment by Chris George on 28 May 2010:
One little quibble: the title. Opposition to racism is part of, not equivalent to, libertarianism. 1 is part of 2, not equivalent to it.
Comment by Neera Badhwar on 28 May 2010:
Hey Sheldon – another great piece! I’m especially glad you pointed out that the argument that starts from the premise that homes and restaurants are both private in exactly the same sense is a lousy argument.
Neera
Comment by Little Alex on 28 May 2010:
@Chris I think the title is a visualization of the statement, “Libertarianism is Anti-Racism”.
I think we can loosely attribute the “=” sign for e-speak, amirite?
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 28 May 2010:
Thanks, Neera. It is a terrible argument that makes libertarians look bad. I can think of a few more, too.
Pingback by A Libertarian Defense of Sit-Ins - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine on 28 May 2010:
[...] of sit-ins as a solution to private racism. Sheldon Richman at the Freeman, in the conclusion of a very worthwhile walk through the reasons why there is more to the rich libertarian perspective on racism than “I [...]
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 28 May 2010:
Here’s another one: “The market will take care of it.” But not if the racist establishment controls, even if only de facto, entry into the “market.”
Comment by Jim on 28 May 2010:
Sheldon,
Thanks for responding to my comment on the CSM piece. Your support for the lunch counter sit ins makes more sense to me now.
Comment by Tom Dennen on 28 May 2010:
South Africa had massive problems with ‘reverse racism’ in this area after the ‘transition’ in 1994 which remain to this day in many respects.
One of them was the banning of psychometric profiling in the State blue collar Apprenticeship Programme, without which anyone could apply (and enter training for) any field from Diesel mechanics, sheet metal work to electrical.
The head of the Diesel Mechanics Programme summed it up: “A little Indian girl decided that she wanted to be with her boyfriend and entered the Diesel Mechanic Programme.
“She did not weigh as much as half of one of the pistons in a marine engine.
“All I could do with her was tie her to a metal pole, wrap her in burlap and clean cylinders with her.”
(I made my money finding workable alternatives to the illegal “eurocentric” profiling.)
Comment by Jim Henshaw on 28 May 2010:
When I walk past a restaurant, in the back of my mind is the thought, “I can go in there.” I have no such thought when I walk past a home.
When I walk past a restaurant, in the back of my mind is the thought, “I can go in there if the owner wants me in there.”
If the place is full of people giving me hostile looks when I step in the door, I may have the legal right to be there, but damned if I’m gonna have my meal marred by overtly hostile patrons or owners. I’ll go somewhere where my business is welcomed, where the waiters are welcoming, where the vibe is right.
Your expectation that you can walk into a private establishment and treat it as a public place is the result of federal laws establishing that anti-libertarian position. In a completely free society, there wouldn’t even be such a thing as a “public place” — there would be nothing but private property, some of which would give indications that you are welcome to enter and engage in capitalist acts with consenting adults with the owner’s approval.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 28 May 2010:
“In a completely free society, there wouldn’t even be such a thing as a “public place” — there would be nothing but private property, some of which would give indications that you are welcome to enter and engage in capitalist acts with consenting adults with the owner’s approval.”
That’s the expectation I’m speaking of. That’s what we mean by a public place — a place open to the public (random strangers), unlike a home or club.
Comment by Jim Henshaw on 29 May 2010:
That’s what we mean by a public place — a place open to the public (random strangers), unlike a home or club.
Where in this progression would a dwelling become a public place?
1) You have friends over and throw a party. Food is served.
2) You serve meals to close friends by invitation only in some venue, and charge them money.
3) Step 2, plus you allow those invited friends to bring guests you haven’t screened, with the understanding that those guests may be disinvited from future gatherings if they misbehave.
4) Step 3, plus due to word of mouth friends of friends of friends start showing up, and you let them in, subject to possible disinviting.
5) Step 4, plus now the social gathering is so famous that people hear about it on the internet and show up — still subject to disinviting.
6) Step 5, plus now people randomly passing on the street come in, so you hang on a sign on the front window saying “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
I don’t see any point on this continuum where a fundamental shift occurs where this stops being a private residence where the owner retains the right to exclude anyone at all that he or she wants to exclude, yet it spans the gamut from a one-time party to an ongoing restaurant.
Comment by Michael Wiebe on 29 May 2010:
“What I want to show here, however, is that this is not the entire libertarian position.”
Exactly. Having a right to be a bigot does not entail that it is morally permissible to exercise that right.
Comment by Kevin Carson on 29 May 2010:
Kevan Barley: And you know that mattress tag that says “Do not remove under penalty of law”? I ripped that sucker right off of there. I deserve whatever I get.
Jim Henshaw: I think the real dividing line is when you open a building in the commercial district and hang a sign over the door, so that it becomes what is conventionally regarded as a “public accomodation.” This doesn’t mean, of course, that it’s public as opposed to private property. It does, however, mean the average person has a reasonable presumption that it’s open for business and that the burden is on the owner to make it clear that he’s excluding you.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 30 May 2010:
Jim, so ambiguity in some imagined circumstances can arise. So what? How is that really relevant? To the extent libertarians argue in this hair-splitting fashion, they look like they are engaged in evasion. I’d like to persuade people to be libertarians. The choir can get preached to by others.
Comment by Jonathan on 31 May 2010:
Mr Richman, you say ‘Seeing fellow human beings locked into a servile role – even if that role is not explicitly maintained by force – properly, reflexively summons in libertarians an urge to object.’
Recognising that strict libertarianism will lead to some situations which are legally acceptable but morally repugnant is I believe why people like Popper objected to strict libertarianism and why he suggested limited govenrment.
The grey area between what is legally and morally acceptable requires an act of faith in the sense that we may think a libertarian order would encourage certain moral sensibilities but it is not necessarily so.
As a Christian I am tempted to argue that without faith this is even more ambiguous and those that are the new atheists do not recognise how much their own sensibilites derive from the culture they live within which in itself derived to no small extent from a religious culture.
One only has to read history books to see the terrible way man has been able to deal with his fellow man and much as libertarians we would like to twist the history to prove these episodes were a consequence of government, it isn’t that clean.
Pingback by This Whole Rand Paul…thing…Part 1 | Thoughts On Liberty on 2 June 2010:
[...] News Network Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act: Was He right? The Christian Science Monitor Libertarianism = Anti-Racism The Freeman: Ideas on [...]
Comment by Anthony on 2 June 2010:
Surely, in a libertarian world the government would have to force a shop owner to be a racist. I would suggest that racism comes from tribalism and statism and authoritarianism. Us verses Them.
Some Blacks would have already been served at the libertarian table public or private. The government , religious or tribal authorities would have said otherwise.
A libertarian should not have to justify his/herself in an authoritarian dilemma.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 3 June 2010:
Is a senior discount okay (age discrimination)?
How about ladies night (gender discrimination)?
How about a dress code (jacket and tie only – No Shoes. No shirt. No service.”?
How about adult oriented communities (age discrimination)?
How about the Men’s room/Ladies room (gender discrimination)?
Why can I am I mature enough at 18 to put my life in danger by joining the armed services but I can’t legally drink beer until I’m 21 (age discrimination)?
Why is the age of consent 18 in some states but as young as 14 in some others (subjective age discrimination)?
Why doesn’t Victoria Secret have a 4’9”, 240 pound model on the payroll (body shape discrimination)?
Should a Catholic expect to hear nice things about the Papacy in the middle of a Protestant sermon?
He’s too fat. She’s too loud. He has a strange accent. She wears too much perfume. We discriminate on a daily basis. Where does our right to discriminate end and someone else’s right to participate begin?
That’s why we have laws and a government to enforce them.
“The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” O.W. Holmes
Comment by Kevin Craig on 4 June 2010:
Call me a pacifist wimp, but I don’t like sit-ins. Trespass is an initiation of force way too close to violence.
What was the fine these lunch-counter protesters were willing to pay when they were arrested for trespassing or violating the segregation code? $100?
Why not enter the restuarant peacefully, flash a crisp $100 bill and say, “I’d like to buy the $100 pie and coffee combo, please.”
How long would segregation have lasted if there were a line of $100 bills going around the block, instead of a line of “protesters?”
Pingback by Follow-Up on Property Rights and Racism « A Terrible Blogger is Born! on 10 June 2010:
[...] under: Anarchy,State,Utopia — rmangum @ 8:28 pm Tags: Libertarian, Murray Rothbard, racism This article by Sheldon Richman, inspired by Rand Paul’s infamous appearance on Rachel Maddow, is [...]
Pingback by Debate Over 1964 Civil Rights Act | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 16 June 2010:
[...] My previous writings on the subject appeared in the Christian Science Monitor and as a TGIF column here. [...]