Discrimination (3): Libertarianism and Private Discrimination

Prominent libertarian politician Rand Paul recently caused a stir by claiming that he didn’t support parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically the parts applying non-discrimination legislation to private businesses. Like most libertarians, he believes that if private restaurant owners, for example, want to prevent blacks from eating there, then that’s their right. Similarly, banks should be allowed not to lend to blacks, real-estate agents not to sell to blacks, private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks etc. Same when the targets are Jews, gays, immigrants and so on.

The standard libertarian position is that only government enforced or government protected discrimination is wrong. Private actors should be allowed to discriminate. A private restaurant owner for instance should be allowed to refuse to serve blacks. However, government rules forcing restaurant owners not to serve blacks are not allowed, even though for the blacks in question the results are much the same.

It’s not that most libertarians think this kind of discrimination is acceptable and would engage in it themselves. They reject legislation against private discrimination because they consider the right to private property and the sovereignty of property owners much more important than the fight against private discrimination. They also argue that market mechanisms, which they also like a whole lot, will – over time – weed out such discrimination. A restaurant owner who refuses to serve blacks will do a lot worse than his competitors who are more open minded. He will lose benefits of scale, will have to raise his prices and ultimately also lose the bigoted white customers who detest eating in the presence of blacks but detest even more paying unreasonable prices.

Here’s a good statement of the libertarian position by a self-confessed libertarian:

(1) Private discrimination should, in general, be legal (this includes affirmative action preferences, btw). Many libertarians would make exceptions for cases of monopoly power, and most would ban private discrimination when the government itself ensured the monopoly by law, as with common carriers like trains; (2) The government may not discriminate. If necessary, the federal government should step in to prevent state and local governments from discriminating; (3) The government may not force private parties to discriminate, and the federal government should, if necessary, step in to prevent state and local governments from forcing private parties to discriminate; (4) The government must protect members of minority groups and those who seek to associate with them from private violence. If the state and local government won’t do so, the federal government should step in. (source)

Note the mention of violence in this quote: private violence against blacks isn’t allowed, private discrimination is. Why the difference? Again, property rights. Laws against violence don’t usually violate anyone’s property rights.

Now, what’s the problem with this libertarian position? Property rights are obviously very important. You don’t need to be a libertarian to believe that. I argued strongly in favor of property rights here. Likewise, the free market does an enormous amount of good. The problem with the libertarian view is absolutism and a rejection of value pluralism. There are many values in life, and many different strategies to realize them. And sometimes, some values or strategies come into conflict with each other. When that happens – as is the case here – you have to be willing to balance them and see which one should take precedence. Privacy and free speech, for example, are both important, but what do you do when a journalist exposes the private life of a public figure? You balance the right and wrong: which value is better served by publishing? Free speech or privacy? In some cases, we may believe that free speech is more important than the right to privacy (for example when the politician’s private life has relevance for his functioning). In other cases privacy will trump speech (for example when the facts published have no political meaning). Such decisions can only be taken case by case because the specifics always differ. Doctrinaire and absolutists positions in favor of one value or the other won’t do. And unfortunately many libertarians, and certainly Rand in this case, seem to think that their preferred values – property, freedom and the market – should always have priority over all other values.

Is legislation such as the Civil Rights Act an infringement of property rights and the freedom to do with your property as you want? Of course it is. Are such infringements always wrong? Of course they aren’t. Sometimes they are a necessary evil to gain a greater good.

There a resemblance between the libertarian views on private discrimination and the more widely accepted view in the U.S. that free speech rights and the First Amendment can only be invoked against the government, as if private actors can’t violate people’s right to free speech. The dominant U.S. free speech doctrine reflects an antiquated view of human rights as exclusively vertical. Of course, the government probably does most of the violations, particularly of a right such as free speech, but probably not in the case of the right not to be discriminated against. That’s more of a private monopoly, and markets, protest marches, boycotts, activism etc. won’t solve that problem by themselves. Just look at the market: it didn’t solve segregation, and neither would it have had it been more free. In fact, it’s likely that bigoted white customers who detest eating in the presence of blacks, will not find themselves in white only and hence more expensive restaurants, but will band together and boycott non-segregated restaurants which then lose far more business among whites than they gain from allowing blacks. Such boycotts are absolutely in line with property rights and the free market, which shows that the market can make discrimination worse instead of destroying it. (For a more sympathetic view of the power of the market, go here).

Strangely, Rand Paul himself invoked the parallel between private discrimination and free speech, but twists it to serve his goals:

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things… It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior. (source)

So we have to tolerate discrimination that actually harms real people, just like we tolerate awful speech that most likely doesn’t hurt a fly? Words don’t equal behavior, although sometimes there may be a thin line between them (which is why hate speech laws can sometimes be justified).

9 thoughts on “Discrimination (3): Libertarianism and Private Discrimination”

  1. I’d send Paul to a libertarian, government-free paradise like Somalia for a few months so he could see his outstanding ideas in action.


    1. :-)

      Although I think you’re being too unkind to the more sophisticated libertarians among us. It’s possible to construct a coherent libertarian theory that doesn’t logically lead to anarchy, although personally I don’t think that’s a very interesting project.


  2. See, I’m not sure any of this really speaks to Rand Paul as much as it speaks to his ability to express the Libertarian philosophy in a cogent way. If you read what he’s said and compare it to the Libertarian Party platform, especially on the BP spill, they don’t seem to fully come into agreement.

    Rather than treat Paul as a Libertarian in Republican clothing, I think he’s trying to combine two philosophies – his own beliefs of libertarianism and the Tea Party nihilism that he needed to win his primary.

    He’s not a bad guy, he’s just a bad spokesman.



  3. I’m impressed with the fearlessness and shamelessness you’ve defeated all these libertarian straw men, oh, Sensitive One.

    “The standard libertarian position is that only government enforced or government protected discrimination is wrong.” – undoubtedly you knew the correct word was “illegal.”

    “…they consider the right to private property and the sovereignty of property owners much more important than the fight against private discrimination.”

    What does private property have to do with the immorality of anti-discrimination legislation? A masseuse opens a small business that says “women only.” An indignant man sues. In court, she offers some silly excuse like she was sexually abused all through her childhood by her stepfather.. and uncle, and all she remembers of physical contact with men is fear, disgust, shame, tears, pain, nausea, more pain and hatred. What do we care? Bigotry is bigotry, we allow one excuse, we allow them all. She should just suck it up and get used to massaging men. A small restaurant proprietor, a bigot, no doubt, does not want to serve a certain customer because he cannot stand her – it’s her race or ethnic background or stupidity or the ugly pants she’s wearing, or any other factor. The proprietor is a free man – if he doesn’t want to grill a burger for anyone, no one will crack a whip over his head and tell him to obey and get to work, correct? Um, no. He’s not free to choose what to do, unless he chooses not to work at all and starve – we’re still free to die of starvation, we free men. If he wants to live, the weakling, the government will FORCE him to cook for, serve and clean up after that woman. He is not allowed to refuse work. Now, when the government forces you to massage men against your will… or cook for and clean up after the people you loathe, the government uses forced labor to achieve its objective of forcible integration. It’s not exactly digging for nickel in Siberian mines in the name of building a proletarian utopia, but forced labor it is: a better-fed Stalinism is still Stalinism. I don’t know about you, but I find it difficult to reconcile forced labor with liberty. You can call my body that the government puts to work against my will my “property,” but I will object to calling this my mind, my being, my Self. It’s not my property, it’s just me. *I* am being forced by the government into forced labor in the name of building some politician’s utopia. I don’t want to evaluate the merits of this utopia: most people do not have and did not have problems with integration, but perhaps destroying freedom for all in the name of imposing tolerance upon a minority is worth it.

    All I am asking is how come I was reduced to Stalinist serfdom in a country that once called itself free? This wasn’t supposed to be a country that was suitable for conducting social engineering experiments on, the Founding Fathers seemed to have done a pretty good job of preventing that. And yet, here we are. Lab mice getting shocked into total obedience by our governmental masters. I don’t like being experimented on. I kinda miss freedom. But what do I know? I’m just a lab mouse who doesn’t understand the grandeur of our Great Leaders’ Utopian Future.


    1. One additional point most economists, even so-called ‘free market’ leaning ones miss, is one that Ludwig von Mises was keenly aware of: property rights and free exchange are not merely efficient or useful, they are the basis of civilization itself. Undermining these leads to a systematic corruption of civil society.

      There would undoubtedly be stupid people, poor people, ugly people and assholes in a libertarian society – and even gangsters. The difference is that in a libertarian society we wouldn’t be using the government to fight a constant civil war (whether open or subdued, as in the case of the government war on low-income blacks) and that the gangsters wouldn’t be the ones calling the shots.

      In an interventionist economy this kind of thuggery is all-too-normal.


  4. […] There will be a problem of equality of opportunity if all or many restaurants, clubs etc. turn you away. But if that’s not the case, and enough of the same opportunities remain elsewhere, even businesses can discriminate on the basis of race in their employment decisions, as long as this practice is not widespread and not part of a wider system of discrimination not limited to employment. If, in a perfectly tolerant and egalitarian society, there’s one bakery insisting on being racist and refusing to hire or serve blacks, who cares? (More here). […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s