Discrimination...

[cleanremarks]

Hello, all.

Ayn Rand believes in man's right to build (only) private roads, schools, etc. She believes that the government has no right to demand that a man offer his services equally to all.

If a man has the right to refuse service, in his private establishment, to anyone he wishes, then wouldn't this lead to the government defending his "right" to discriminate against others? By "discriminate," I mean to treat others differently on the basis of sex or race.

What if this man owns a major highway, but refuses to let black people, hispanics, women, or whoever drive on it?

Edited October 28, 2010 by brian0918

[brian0918]

Ayn Rand believes in man's right to build (only) private roads, schools, etc. She believes that the government has no right to demand that a man offer his services equally to all.

If a man has the right to refuse service, in his private establishment, to anyone he wishes, then wouldn't this lead to the government defending his "right" to discriminate against others? By "discriminate," I mean to treat others differently on the basis of sex or race.

Yes, that is correct.

What if this man owns a major highway, but refuses to let black people, hispanics, women, or whoever drive on it?

Presumably he would lose a lot of business, not only by driving away these specific demographics, but also anyone who would boycott him for such foolish discrimination. As a result he might not be able to maintain that huge highway, and would lose even more business. His poor choices would thus create a huge incentive for a parallel private highway to be created/expanded, in order to feed that demand.

Fundamentally though, you should realize that nobody has the right to the goods/services of another. The needs of one do not create a claim on another's life. Ethically, the fact that this person owns a major highway does not imply a different moral judgment than if he only owned a small dead-end road.

Edited October 28, 2010 by brian0918

[icosahedron]

The basic principle (that ought to be written into a proper Constitution) is that the government must not take moral positions nor actions based on such positions.

The idea that I must allow someone into my private establishment for any reason beyond a criminal investigation is a moral position. The government should stick to protection and mediation services based on strict objective standards, i.e., not open to moral interpretation, and therefore not vulnerable to the whims of the individuals that operate the government.

- ico

[cleanremarks]

Wouldn't you consider the government's protection of the individual rights of its people a moral stance? To the first response: I understand and agree that no one has the rights to another's goods and services. But assuming a boycott as a reaction to unreasonable practices seems to be a form of knowledge that is based on faith, not objectivity.

[brian0918]

To the first response: I understand and agree that no one has the rights to another's goods and services. But assuming a boycott as a reaction to unreasonable practices seems to be a form of knowledge that is based on faith, not objectivity.

You said, "what if", and I offered what I thought were the likely results of such a scenario. You disagree about those results. So what? Whether or not the boycott actually occurs is irrelevant to your original question - just as irrelevant as your scenario is as a means to forming ethical/political principles.

Edited October 28, 2010 by brian0918

[SapereAude]

I understand and agree that no one has the rights to another's goods and services. But assuming a boycott as a reaction to unreasonable practices seems to be a form of knowledge that is based on faith, not objectivity.

It is a matter of choices.

The owner has the right to dispose of his property as he sees fit. That includes the right to irrationally exclude people.

All the people who the owner wants to have as purchasers of his services have the right to a choice too. They have the right to refuse to purchase what is offered by such an irrational person.

Keep in mind that the concept of "rights" has been mangled and diluted of late.

What is a "right" is a very specific concept.

I cannot infringe on someone's "right" to partake of my services- no such right exists.

[cleanremarks]

All the people who the owner wants to have as purchasers of his services have the right to a choice too. They have the right to refuse to purchase what is offered by such an irrational person.

I agree with your argument that logical people would probably boycott the services of such an idiot--as they should. That being said, why is it wrong to create a law that says a man cannot discriminate based on race or color? Wouldn't that proactively dissolve turmoil and, ultimately, benefit everyone?

[cleanremarks]

You said, "what if", and I offered what I thought were the likely results of such a scenario. You disagree about those results.

I am disagreeing with your logic in reaching that conclusion.

[SapereAude]

I agree with your argument that logical people would probably boycott the services of such an idiot--as they should. That being said, why is it wrong to create a law that says a man cannot discriminate based on race or color? Wouldn't that proactively dissolve turmoil and, ultimately, benefit everyone?

Most tyranny derives from politicians advocating infringement upon rights in the name of dissolving turmoil and benefitting the masses. Look through history at the world's most brutal regimes. That was most often the excuse given.

Why it would be wrong to create that law has already been stated- because a man's ability to live qua man is dependant upon being able to act freely. Part of this is based on ownership of property and the rights to its disposal. If I work to obtain something that thing is mine. Because it is mine I can do with it as I see fit (so long as it does not intrude upon the rights of others). If you take away my right to the property I earned you are in essence also stealing the work that earned it- which makes a slave of me.

Again we come back to definitions- you must fully undertsand the definition of "rights".

So, to best further this conversation- how do define "rights"?

[RationalBiker]

I agree with your argument that logical people would probably boycott the services of such an idiot--as they should. That being said, why is it wrong to create a law that says a man cannot discriminate based on race or color? Wouldn't that proactively dissolve turmoil and, ultimately, benefit everyone?

The idea of objective law is not to 'benefit everyone' as its primary purpose, it is to protect individual rights, which in turn benefits everyone. It is wrong because it violates an individual's property rights among other things. A person would not have the right to drive on another person's highway regardless of their color or ethnicity but the government would be forcing that owner to use his property in way that makes him a "slave" to others. By forcing the person to associate with, provide goods, services or access to one's property violates the whole concept of that individual's right to his own property.

[cleanremarks]

Most tyranny derives from politicians advocating infringement upon rights in the name of dissolving turmoil and benefitting the masses. Look through history at the world's most brutal regimes. That was most often the excuse given.

Why it would be wrong to create that law has already been stated- because a man's ability to live qua man is dependant upon being able to act freely. Part of this is based on ownership of property and the rights to its disposal. If I work to obtain something that thing is mine. Because it is mine I can do with it as I see fit (so long as it does not intrude upon the rights of others). If you take away my right to the property I earned you are in essence also stealing the work that earned it- which makes a slave of me.

Again we come back to definitions- you must fully undertsand the definition of "rights".

So, to best further this conversation- how do define "rights"?

"A right is a moral concept that defines and sanctions a man's freedom of action in a social context." -Ayn Rand

"The basic way one man can violate the rights of another is by initiating physical force against him." -Ayn Rand

How is one initiating physical force against someone by not allowing him to discriminate against a certain group of people? I do not believe the governmnet should dictate what he does with his property. However, I do not believe he has the right to use his property as a means of promoting his prejudice.

Edited October 28, 2010 by cleanremarks

[bluecherry]

"How is one initiating physical force against someone by not allowing him to discriminate against a certain group of people?"

How do you think the government disallows the discrimination? By inserting force into the scenario, threatening to use force to make him cease to discriminate in things like race and sex in who he allows to use his property. Before that point, there was no force involved because since other people don't have a right to use somebody else's property, that property owner's refusal to let those other people use the property was not using force against them, it would only carry perhaps the implied insistence on self defense IF those other people started trying to use force to violate that person's right to do as they saw fit with the products of their efforts.

[brian0918]

I am disagreeing with your logic in reaching that conclusion.

Which "conclusion" are you referring to? Do you mean my comment about there possibly being boycotts? You consider that a "conclusion"?

And what logic specifically did you disagree with? Or more accurately, what logic did you imagine me to use, given that I only offered my guess that a boycott would occur, and did not offer any "logic" to support it - since it was irrelevant to the question at hand.

Edited October 28, 2010 by brian0918

[2046]

I agree with your argument that logical people would probably boycott the services of such an idiot--as they should. That being said, why is it wrong to create a law that says a man cannot discriminate based on race or color? Wouldn't that proactively dissolve turmoil and, ultimately, benefit everyone?

Such “turmoil” can only be avoided on by each man having a right to his own life. No one benefits, most of all minorities, by the destruction of his right to control his own life.

No one's “benefit” is achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. I am not benefited by being forced to deal with someone I don't want to deal with. I am not benefited by giving my money to a racist. I am not benefited by allowing the racist to skirt the economic and social premium that would have otherwise been placed on his behavior.

The purpose of government is not to prevent the “turmoil” of boycotts, otherwise the simple act of not allowing someone to use my property is grounds for legal persecution. If I own my own physical body, then I have a right to discriminate, that means to discern and choose, who I want to associate with. If I may not disallow you the use of my body, then it logically follows from that premise that you have a legal right to rape me. Or if “turmoil” is your standard of value, any arbitrary demand from anyone which would be ignored by anyone else would create “turmoil” and thus the government should logically follow from that premise to keep us all in a totalitarian cage, ruled by an anti-discrimination “liberal” dictator to make us all morally upright.

Conflicting values and ideas is a part of every day life in human society. What you appear to actually mean in that the government's job to prevent “turmoil” is that it is the government's job to prevent conflicting values among individuals. It is impossible for government to decide in such a way as to eliminate all interpersonal value-conflict, the very attempt to do so is a revolt against the nature of man and his means of choosing values and ends for his life.

I am disagreeing with your logic in reaching that conclusion.

Then it appears you disagree with logic itself. One does not need faith to reach the conclusion that the likely result of racial discrimination anywhere in America would be large scale protest and boycott. That conclusion can be reached by simple inductive reasoning based on observation. Just where in the country are these teeming masses of evil racists conspiring together, just waiting on the first chance they can get to throw out all the minorities from profit-seeking business establishments? You damn well know that any such attempt would be picketed out of existence in 5 seconds.

Your position however, is ultimately a result of the idea that morality cannot be not based on an individual's own rational judgment and choices, but is required to be dictated to the individual from on high. Where did you get that idea? Certainly not from logic, since there is no logical justification for such a position.

[2046]

... I do not believe the governmnet should dictate what he does with his property. However, I do not believe he has the right to use his property as a means of promoting his prejudice.

Those two sentences are in contradiction with one another.

If I have a right to life, that means I have a right to exist for my own sake, that my life is an end in itself, not the means to the ends of others. The right to life, legally means that I own my own life and my own physical body as well as all physical goods produced with my mind and my body or justly acquired goods that I have traded for. This ownership implies his right to employ these resources however one sees fit, that is, to consume them or use them to produce other goods with their help, as long as one does not thereby uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's property, or as long as one does not delimit another person's control over his property without having his consent.

This is what the right to private property means. Therefore if I am to have a right to my own life, this necessarily implies the of freedom of contract and association, as well as of course the freedom not to contract and not to associate if we so desire. Simply not talking to someone, or not allowing someone the use of my property is not an initiation of physical force or aggression onto their body or property, e.g., not letting a rapist use my physical body is not violating “the right to rape.” Therefore I absolutely have the right not to let someone use my property, even if I am irrational and immoral about who I choose to associate with, as long as I am not violating anyone else's right to control their own bodies and property. I have a right to live on the basis of my own judgment, even if my judgment is racist or sexist or whatever. Thus, we generally reject all forms of anti-discrimination laws or so-called “civil rights” legislation. Instead, every owner has the right to discriminate against and exclude whoever he wants for whatever reason he so chooses, because it is logically necessary from the right to private property.

Saying that man has a right to private property, but not a right to employ that property as he sees fit without invading another's property, is a statement in which the predicate contradicts the premise.

Edited October 28, 2010 by 2046

[SapereAude]

How is one initiating physical force against someone by not allowing him to discriminate against a certain group of people?

What is a law?

Think of the term "law enforcement".

The power of law is coercive. It is threat of force.

So again, describe what a law is and you answered your own question.

[Dante]

I do not believe the governmnet should dictate what he does with his property. However, I do not believe he has the right to use his property as a means of promoting his prejudice.

Can you define what you mean by using his property as a means of promoting prejudice? As stated here, this would seem to eliminate free speech as we know it. Should individuals be allowed to publish a racist newsletter, or put racist signs on their front lawn, or to hold meetings based around racism and promoting it in their homes? Should all racist web sites be dismantled?

Once you make the claim that the government has a legitimate role in restricting what someone can do with their property for the purpose of promoting racial sensitivity, you are assigning to the government the role of deciding what is "appropriate" and what is not. This is not a role that government should have. We have a government for one purpose: to protect individual rights. "Extending" the government's role in any fashion beyond this inevitably entails violating individual rights and counteracting the purpose of government.

[icosahedron]

Wouldn't you consider the government's protection of the individual rights of its people a moral stance?

No more than I consider a programmed computer to be making decisions for itself ... the government has to stick to the script, it's not a producer and should not pretend to be.

Remember, government has the power to use deliberate force legally. That power is not consistent with making choices, and its use must be thoroughly proscribed -- the government does not have the law in its hands any more than I do; it's job is enforcement and mediation of rights, not determination, value judgments, nor interpretation.

- ico

[cleanremarks]

I appreciate all your responses. I enjoy a good debate.

Some of you are pointing to the idea that I am promoting a "liberal dictatorship." Meaning, the government is involved in ALL affairs, arbitrarily. I have said nothing like this, nor have I said anything that could be carried toward the idea. A dictatorship is nothing I or anyone would wish, of course.

I agree with you all that arbitrary, unchecked power is something to be passionately resisted. However, I do believe that the government has the right to make reasonable laws at the demand of its people. The PEOPLE are the government. The PEOPLE decide what is reasonable, not by overwhelming majority, but by reason and fairness. Any educated adult knows the difference between a fair legislation(i.e. the civil rights movement or minimum wage) and the arbitrary practice of tyranny.

Also, I believe the government has the right to tax its citizens. However, consequently, the citizens have a right to demand services from the government because of this(roads, schools, defense, etc.). How would there be things like traffic laws if everyone owned their own roads? It would be as chaotic as driving in the Congo(which I've done).

Ultimately, folks, I do not support a philosophy that holds property rights higher than human decency.

Edited October 29, 2010 by cleanremarks

[Eiuol]

However, I do believe that the government has the right to make reasonable laws at the demand of its people. The PEOPLE are the government. The PEOPLE decide what is reasonable, not by overwhelming majority, but by reason and fairness.

What is reasonable and fair about forcing someone to use their property in a particular way?

[OCSL]

I agree with you all that arbitrary, unchecked power is something to be passionately resisted. However, I do believe that the government has the right to make reasonable laws at the demand of its people. The PEOPLE are the government. The PEOPLE decide what is reasonable, not by overwhelming majority, but by reason and fairness. Any educated adult knows the difference between a fair legislation(i.e. the civil rights movement or minimum wage) and the arbitrary practice of tyranny.

Also, I believe the government has the right to tax its citizens. However, consequently, the citizens have a right to demand services from the government because of this(roads, schools, defense, etc.). How would there be things like traffic laws if everyone owned their own roads? It would be as chaotic as driving in the Congo(which I've done).

Just curious, do you consider yourself an objectivist or did you just come here for a debate (nothing wrong with that)? You say you disapprove of a dictatorship but what you are suggesting is certainly not total freedom for its citizens. If all roads are privatized I would assume traffic laws would still exist. The government's job would be to protect against the initiation of force in an objectivist society. If the owner of a road said people can drive in any direction at any speed I would assume the government would intervene. People often confuse total freedom in the objective sense with anarchy. However in your example, no harm comes to the people who are discriminated against. Ultimately the land owner would suffer when he loses customers for his highway.

Edited October 29, 2010 by OCSL

[softwareNerd]

... I do believe that the government has the right to make reasonable laws at the demand of its people. The PEOPLE are the government. The PEOPLE decide what is reasonable, not by overwhelming majority, but by reason and fairness.

You start by saying that the people can make laws, but you obviously realize that democracy can be tyrannical as well. So, you add on the condition that the majority may not decide, but reason and fairness must be factored in. Well, ask yourself this: can there ever be a situation where the majority is being unreasonable? What about a super majority: can there ever be a situation where 90% of people in a country belong to some religion and want to deny religious rights to the other 10%? Yes, I'm sure you realize that; thus you added the condition: fairness and reason. However, if you think reason and fairness are primary, you need to drop the notion of the government doing what the people want it to do. You cannot have it both ways. In actual fact, a majority might be able to force the government to oppress a minority; that still does not make it right. Therefore, when deciding what is right and what is wrong, throw out the notion of who said it, and how many, and ask about reason and fairness alone.

Any educated adult knows the difference between a fair legislation(i.e. the civil rights movement or minimum wage) and the arbitrary practice of tyranny.

You say you like an argument, but this is a poor showing. After paying lip-service to reason, you do not even attempt to give any reasons at all. Instead, you shrug if off, with what amounts to "it's obvious". So, anyone who disagrees with you is simply "uneducated" or not an "adult"? There was a time when educated men thought all sorts of things. What makes you so sure that you have a unique place in history where the opinion of educated people (whatever that means) is to be taken as obviously right. All you're doing is abandoning reason and relying on majority; but, instead of overall majority, you're relying on a majority of "educated" folk. These are the same guys who thought that the moon was a perfect circle with no craters because it was a heavenly body, and it is obvious that heavenly bodies must be perfect.

Also, I believe the government has the right to tax its citizens. However, consequently, the citizens have a right to demand services from the government because of this(roads, schools, defense, etc.).

Perhaps because you believe in counting noses of educated people, you think that stating a belief has any standing. The only way it can get any respect is if you offer reasons. This is not a progressive kindergarten where all the kiddies express themselves and everyone's opinion has some weight.

How would there be things like traffic laws if everyone owned their own roads? It would be as chaotic as driving in the Congo(which I've done).

It is a good question, but it is too derivative a question to get into unless one has agreed on first principles.

Ultimately, folks, I do not support a philosophy that holds property rights higher than human decency.

From your posts, it sounds like you've got your knowledge of Objectivism from the Wiki. Property rights are not a foundation stone of Objectivism; maybe you're mixing us up with the religious conservatives. In Objectivism, morality is primary... political systems are derivative.

[SapereAude]

Ultimately, folks, I do not support a philosophy that holds property rights higher than human decency.

What you lack understanding of is that property rights keep us from being slaves.

Being anti slavery and pro freedom is the highest form of human decency.

[icosahedron]

Any educated adult knows the difference between a fair legislation(i.e. the civil rights movement or minimum wage) and the arbitrary practice of tyranny.

Any adult? Really? How do they know? Do they just "know it" intrinsically? Do they follow the opinion of others? Or do they have an objective basis for determining fairness of legislation? If the latter, can you describe this basis that transcends human opinion, i.e. is (according to the logic of your claim), a lesson everyone learns such that, given a piece of legislation and the question "Is it fair?", every adult comes to the same yes/no conclusion?

The civil rights movement is not legislation. And the minimum wage oversteps the bounds of government's proper function.

Also, I believe the government has the right to tax its citizens. However, consequently, the citizens have a right to demand services from the government because of this(roads, schools, defense, etc.). How would there be things like traffic laws if everyone owned their own roads? It would be as chaotic as driving in the Congo(which I've done).

The government is not an individual and has no right to do anything; it has things it MUST do, according to its charter, and things it must NOT do. But these are standing orders, not rights which the government can choose to exercise or not. The government ought to be the epitome of rational efficiency in the execution of its proper functions; it has no business dabbling in any other functions other than: protection of individual rights; and mediation of contract disputes.

Ultimately, folks, I do not support a philosophy that holds property rights higher than human decency.

Then I can't trust you not to take my property without paying me fair recompense. It's really that simple. If you can take the time to understand why trust is based on property rights, including the right to one's life and limbs, and to the products of one's efforts; then you will see what is going on here, morally and with full logical consistency.

If you do not embrace property rights as an absolute, then you allow for the fact that, sometimes, it is appropriate for an individual to surrender a greater value in return for a lesser one, at the behest of some other individual, simply because the other individual commands it. You can't escape the logic of it: who decides which property rights to violate at which point in time, and to whose benefit? Even admitting the fact that property rights might be attenuated in the future immediately reduces the range of reliable planning a person can do, under such threat.

And that is the real problem. As with the right of self-defense, the right of property must be an absolute to be valid. To have property rights most of the time is to have no property rights.

- ico

[Eiuol]

If the owner of a road said people can drive in any direction at any speed I would assume the government would intervene.

I think this closer to actually agreeing with what cleanremarks is saying, so I'm addressing it. If you don't like the obvious danger of such a road, don't drive on it. No issue of force involved, whatever the property owner says goes, unless force is initiated.