Is Freedom Racism?

The socialists believe in two things which are absolutely different and perhaps even contradictory: freedom and organization  -- Elie Halevy

Over the last few years as the word "libertarian" has become more widely used, even applying it to people who clearly are not libertarian. On several occasions certain media representatives and their admirers have stooped to pinning the label "racist" on libertarians and the Libertarian Political Party. Specifically this issue has come up in regards to defense of property rights.

I haven't met any Libertarians that are racists. I have met the ugly face of racism growing up here in Texas unfortunately, but not from anyone that has labeled themselves as Libertarian. I am sure there are some people that call themselves Libertarian for whatever reason and are racists, but this is no different than any other group 'collecting' outsiders that are confused. I will quite honestly tell you that, if I were forced to choose, I would feel more comfortable with a true Libertarian racists than a non Libertarian one. By definition a Libertarian knows not to impose themselves upon another while a racists of any other party will happily do so with the power of government. So even if you believe Libertarians are racists they would be the most harmless kind by the very definition of being Libertarian.

There are no rights held higher or lower than another. The issue of property rights is extremely simple: Are you free to do something with what you own or not? But the argument being made here against racists shop owners really isn't about rights at all. The argument really is about someone else being allowed to do something one does not like. The argument is to force someone to do what what another person finds as morally as acceptable. It is personal statement of morality. That is why the ideas are so easily placed on a moral stepladder because it has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with personal judgment of others. This is nothing but desire to punish people that are disagreeable using the power of government. I understand the urge. It is perfectly human to desire to do that, but one must realize that the power to do such a thing strips away freedom and does not protect it as expected. If one group can impose their judgment using government power then what stops another group? Freedom must be maintained absolutely for all parties or it holds no meaning and is left to the whims of the times and those in power. Beware of when the faddish moral judgments of a mob turn against you in a tyrannical world!

So lets bring this back to actually discussing rights. First lets realize that businesses are people. Its easy to abstract them away and see them as cold inhuman entities but fundamentally it is no different than Person A wanting to trade a good with Person B. People run business, people make businesses, people participate in business, people are businesses. We are really talking about peoples' rights here and separating them out into an abstracted entity is not very meaningful. So the question is does Person A have a fundamental right to do what he wants with his property even when that is judged as morally bad. Libertarians state, and I think you have to agree if you believe in freedom, that doing what you want with your property is freedom. So the next question is how much freedom? Is there a limit? Just how much freedom does one have that extends to what they own? Can Person A sell their property for 100 times what it is worth, or hold it away until someone they like better comes along? Can they hold their property until someone they think really needs it wants it? Can they give it to a charity of their choice? Can they destroy it and not give it to anyone? Can they give it away haphazardly. Can they give it to a favorite person? Can they not share it and sell it off and enjoy the money for themselves? There are so many choices that it is easy to see a spectrum of possibilities and how any ability to regulate what someone does with their property instantly turns that property into the governments property and not the property of the individual. If a person cannot choose to do what they will with their property then it is simply not their property. So if I take my property and enclose it within a structure that I have purchased (again my property) then why should I not do what I want with all my belongings. If I put up a bag of sugar and say it is for sale then it is really no different than having a bag of sugar in my house that I may be willing to give away. All of it is my property and what happens with it is governed by my will. I can choose to trade it as I see fit and I also cannot force it upon another. Mutual agreement of transaction is king here. This is the argument for absolute property rights and not for flippant checks of whatever a powerful group at the time thinks is proper. 

Now focusing specifically on racism, it is obvious that is not a moral or intelligent behavior. But, in order to preserve the rights of morally upright and smarter people to deal with their property in a free manner then the right must be maintained. All people must be allowed  to do as they wish with their property. The very instant Person B gains the power to tell another what to do with their freedom then Person A also gains power to do it as well. It may not come in the same form, but now the government has authority in dictating how trade is to be carried out and not Person A nor Person B. People are no longer in control of their transactions and the products of their liberty but 3rd parties are. Government is always with the whims of the time and always behind the curve of societal change for the better which means it slows us down. How is it ok for government (people with guns and badges) to decide the morality in this case but not on other issues as well such as abortion, gays, or contraception. If you believe in a government that is a morality police then how is that they would not be allowed to do so in all areas? Who gets to pick those morals? It is absurd to think that there is this magical 'obvious' wall of morality that the government cannot cross. If government is allowed to make moral decisions for people then the doors are open for it to do so in all respects.

Now from a practical standpoint:

Option 1) There is a law that states business owners cannot refuse based on skin color. So lets say a Black shop owner refused to serve Hispanic people. All the law really does is make the perception of obvious racism go away. It actually does not change ideas or the moral fabric of a person. The Hispanic can still be mistreated, overcharged, have their food spit on, or denied service for some made up reason. The base problem still exists and most likely hatred is inflamed further by the feeling of oppression shoved on the racists shopkeeper and  they will use biases to help justify their actions. The racists feels like a victim and the actual victim may not even be aware they are victimized.  If they are aware of their victimization then it is most likely in a way they cannot do anything about because it would be impossible to prove.

Option 2) There are no laws telling people what to do with their property. A Japanese shop owner puts up a sign that says: "No Whites Allowed". This is pretty bad, but a clear indication of intent. Because of this behavior the shop keep may be a few loyal customers who agree with him, but market pressures (free association of trade) will mean that he loses far more customers than he gains. By openly dealing with the issue he, although morally bad, expresses his wishes and isn't turned into a petty martyr. Freedom of property is preserved. The people that could be harmed by his behavior are protected. And a more hidden option is now opened which is an avenue of discussion. The community is likely to discuss the shop and people may even discuss the circumstance with the shop owner. This is how society changes. Issues must be confronted and not hidden away.

Laws do not make better people. Even from the collectivist viewpoint of a society that must take care of each other, one can see that being open and confronting problems in a compassionate way instead of an iron fist will solve more for us as a whole. Removing freedom by law does not make us better people. If we could make a better society by law it would have happened. All we have today is a more bitterly divided state than ever before. Once down a road of crushing what is seen as wrong (people) out of existence then that path must be maintained indefinitely. A society dedicated to that would have to be dedicated to destroying parts of itself (future people) because people will always be born that accept bad ideas.

A comparison to the KKK and the Libertarian party was mentioned which I found quite appalling. My personal statement on this:

The only thing I liked about the KKK was how they helped hurt racism. When hate is brought into the light it turns the stomach and burdens the mind. A monster in the daylight teaches us more than those we think are lurking in the darkness.

The emotional reaction to discrimination is transparently obvious, but the rational response is not. So many times we believe we are acting compassionately but we are hurting the very paths that lead to a better life for everyone. How can we heal the world if we hide the bad parts? How can we protect freedom by striping it away? How are we free to care for another human when that right is taken away? If we are a society filled with such selfishness and greed that we would destroy ourselves in blind hatred and rage then why even bother with any pretense? A society filled with people like that could never make a government that was not a product of that evil. And if that evil is only a small portion of our society why risk giving it power through government? Giving away our power to do good on our own under the pretense of someone doing good on our behalf is the greatest travesty to freedom and blow to compassion we could possibly do.