Many people have accused Rand Paul of being racist for arguing that the government does not have the right (and should not have the right) to tell private businesses how to do business with regard to the kinds of customers they serve. This would include the government not being able to force a restaurant to serve black clientele if it chose not to serve clientele from that particular community.
Rand Paul repeatedly argues that this kind of restaurant policy would be despicable but he goes onto argue that it doesn’t mean that the government should have a right to tell businesses how to operate. The real issue here is the difference in the conception of property rights Rand Paul has compared to those who think a government is perfectly entitled in telling a business how to operate.
For Rand Paul, and libertarians in general, a person’s liberty is of utmost importance. Furthermore, libertarians do not differentiate between private property and the property you own that you use to make money. That is, you have the same rights with regard to your home that you have with regard to your place of business. Just as it would be unreasonable to suggest that the government should force a racist white person to allow a black person into his or her home, it is as foolish to suggest that the government should be allowed to force a restaurant to serve a particular group of people the private ownership doesn’t wish to serve.
Rand Paul isn’t racist or radical: he is simply consistent. A set of property rights remains the same whether it is your home or your business. Furthermore, it would be entirely irrational for a business to set up shop and not serve to people – this just doesn’t make economic sense! In addition to this, a business that refused to serve people because of arbitrary properties such as black skin would lose reasonable patrons very quickly and go out of business. Remember what happens when governments get involved in the way businesses operate: the financial crisis of 2007.
Rand Paul repeatedly argues that this kind of restaurant policy would be despicable but he goes onto argue that it doesn’t mean that the government should have a right to tell businesses how to operate. The real issue here is the difference in the conception of property rights Rand Paul has compared to those who think a government is perfectly entitled in telling a business how to operate.
For Rand Paul, and libertarians in general, a person’s liberty is of utmost importance. Furthermore, libertarians do not differentiate between private property and the property you own that you use to make money. That is, you have the same rights with regard to your home that you have with regard to your place of business. Just as it would be unreasonable to suggest that the government should force a racist white person to allow a black person into his or her home, it is as foolish to suggest that the government should be allowed to force a restaurant to serve a particular group of people the private ownership doesn’t wish to serve.
Rand Paul isn’t racist or radical: he is simply consistent. A set of property rights remains the same whether it is your home or your business. Furthermore, it would be entirely irrational for a business to set up shop and not serve to people – this just doesn’t make economic sense! In addition to this, a business that refused to serve people because of arbitrary properties such as black skin would lose reasonable patrons very quickly and go out of business. Remember what happens when governments get involved in the way businesses operate: the financial crisis of 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment