Rand Paul, R-Ky., has said on multiple occasions he disagrees with points in the civil rights act that affect private businesses. Naturally he has received a considerable amount of criticism for his opinions, but I agree with him. While recency heuristics will embolden my opposition, Paul’s explanation is lackluster and needs libertarian clarification.
I think it’s fair to say the fundamental role of government is to organize cooperation amongst individuals without victimizing any number of those individuals. I believe people should have the right to do anything as long as it doesn’t impede on another’s personal property, body, possession or anyone whom the person may care about. Furthermore, any law denying us this right is coercive and, therefore, immoral.
I condemn racism and do my best to not be a hypocrite. However, I think freedom of speech must be protected unless someone is actually victimized by bigotry. Maligning graffiti on a statue in a public university is unavoidable and offends countless individuals of all races. An individual who commits this crime should be expelled from the university for breaching contract, and pay for the harm he has caused to his peers.
That being said, I don’t consider many of the points in the Civil Rights Act to be necessary. Privately owned businesses should be allowed to make or deny contracts with whomever they want. After all, a business is owned by people. Forcing those people to act against their will causes a morality tradeoff I don’t believe we need to make, for economic and social reasons.
Practicing prejudice rarely makes sense for private industry. Consider this situation: A white guy and a black guy are bidding on your car. If you sell the car to the white guy, although he has a lower offer, you are worse off in the end. Even more practically, why would you ever bar a customer from making a purchase, and, effectively, lose money? This is a slight simplification, but only for the sake of brevity.
Denying purchase to select groups also has another negative effect. I think it’s safe to say our society’s views on racism are predominantly negative. We mark anyone who commits racist acts with hate. South Park has even suggested a wrong answer on Wheel of Fortune will brand you for life. Therefore it’s reasonable to conclude if a business repudiates anyone, for reasons beyond their personal utility, they will see negative backlash. Just look at what we did to a certain graffiti artist.
The accomplishment of the Civil Rights Act was taught as making social progress as a society, but how can it be called progress if it is forced? The millions of racists in our country didn’t change their ways. In fact, they became increasingly more polarized. A bunch of white senators congratulating each other for not being racist isn’t going to change the consequences of the Jim Crow laws.
Although we have moved a long way as a society, we still live in a world of racism. Even if globalization reaches max entropy, someone will still discriminate against others based on sexual orientation, class or, in the future, their home planet. Discrimination cannot be fought by any amount of democratic legislation due to the inherent minority flaws of democracy. I’m not saying the libertarian system is perfect, but I think it would be an improvement on what we have now. The only way to punish those who wrongly profile others is to live in a world controlled by a true free market.