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
