Title II of the Civil Rights Act
by Jeffrey Miron on June 24th, 2010
6 Comments
My comments on an essay by David Bernstein, at Cato Unbound.
Categories:
My Blog
This entry was posted
on Thursday, June 24th, 2010 at 4:29 am and is filed under My Blog.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Bill
Jeff,
You are right on about Title II of the civil rights act.
It was politically expedient for some politicians at the time, however, and is usually the case, the long consequences were not well thought out.
Being against Title II does not speak of one being a racist or not so much as it questions how we feel about our fellow mans ability to make his own good choices. In other words, do we need a doting parent in the government to watch over us and make choices for us about our relationships to others? Do we need our neighbor to be coddled by the government because we feel he may be a racist? This is not empowering our populous. We are better off when we believe that we are capable of good choices and can rise to a higher level and perhaps see each other as equal no matter what color, but not because someone rammed it down our throats via the government, but through our own enlightenment.
Yes, our governmental institutions should be color blind, but having the government tell me I can not allow my patrons to smoke in my establishment when it clearly states that I allow it on the door – and that if you enter there will be smoking goes way to far and opens a Pandora Box of future governmental transgressions.
In other words some people act in ways we do not admire – as in being a racist. I would argue that to take away everyones freedom is a far greater misdeed.
Javier R.
I agree with Dr Miron as well. I would say that leftist paternalists understand this principle as well. They act so disgusted only to score political points. When they, through such organizations as the ACLU, defend the rabid Neo Nazis, KKK or other hate groups, no one accuses them of being sympathizers of hate. It is a principle against gov’t intrusion into the market place of speech. So too when we argue for property rights in terms of allowing discrimination, it is a principle against govt dictating how we can use our sovereign property rights. It is a stand against paternalism whose consequences are more damaging than helpful. Not a nod for racism. Libertarians are simply more consistent than liberals at this point. Unfortunatley there are libertarians who feel they can give a libertarian argument for Title II. I think very unconvincingly. I agree with Dr. Miron that that has been the most surprising thing about the whole episode. It seems that some libertarians want to bow before the altar of mainstream acceptance. Kuddos to Dr Miron for sticking to those libertarian principles especially beig a lecturer at Harvard! Hopefully the thought police won’t send him to Room 101 like they have to other libertarians. Dr. Miron I hope you keep on this topic and I hope you respond to Bernstein’s last piece.
Cliff Nelson
What if smoking in a restaurant leads to greater costs on others in the form of health care (resulting from second hand smoke) and injury to children who hardly are in a position to choose? I thought libertarians believe in freedom from being burdened by the actions of others. Doesn’t that mean that they should also not burden others? And, if so, why not have laws that enforce such restraints?
Javier R.
I dont see how that relates to a civil rights question. Nonetheless, that presents no problem at all. I would ask, why would this require govt regulation? People choose all the time not to go places that they know causes harm to them. I choose not to go to resturaunts that are smoke filled because I know it would not provide a pleasant environment. No coercion involved. Why would children have to choose if they are under the care of parents?
If I were a restauranter, it would be in my purely greedy-profit-making-self-interest to bring in the most customers. I know that most folks dont like smoke filled environments. The incentive is there to cater to customer preferences, mostly non smokers. However the idea that libertarians dont believe in in being burdened by other’s actions is not quite accurate. That is too broad of a statement. We are burdened all the time. You smoke the effects of of car emissions all the time but no one is calling for the abolition of cars, not yet anyway. Its not so much being burdened but being deprived of rights (personal, property, etc.). Your example, which is a common example used against libertarians, if it proves anything proves too much. I am “burdened” by unhealthy folks who eat nothing but junk food. They also pose certain health care costs. Do you see where this is going? Alcoholics pose a burden. We are burdened by many things. This would call for a paternalistic state for everything. That is how I would roughly outline the libertarian approach.
dfvzazan
I live in New York City. Until Rand Paul’s comments, it was uber chic to express fiscally conservative views while socially couching it with the phrase, “…but I consider myself a libertarian.” It sounded so exotic and non-Rightist it easily passed muster at even the most liberal dinner parties. That is until Paul’s interview on MSNBC. Now libertarians are even more persona nongrata than W.F.Buckley ever was. This is utter hypocrisy. Libertarianism, in my (ever evolving) view, is a unifying theory. If you can not apply it in the most difficult situations, you don’t deserve to hide behind its moniker. All who use it to conceal their otherwise unpopular opinions in the public square is unworthy of its name. Professor Miron’s retort to Bernstein is much appreciated and essential to advancing libertarianism.
Javier R.
dfvazan, You hit the nail on the head. I couldnt agree more.
Thats interesting what you say about NYC and the acceptance of libertarian talk. Very nice surprise to hear that.
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Borders
Search Jeffrey's Site
Jeffrey’s Recent Posts
Recent Tags
Jeffrey’s Archives
Entries (RSS)