Furthermore, the state was hardly a neutral enforcer of property rights in those days. I have very little doubt that any single white business owner who started serving blacks and whites together would have been visited by every health and building-code inspector in the county, on a daily basis–not to mention the nontrivial probability of finding that his business suddenly caught fire one night and burned to the ground while the firemen (employed by the same government that enforced the rest of the apartheid regime) toasted marshmallows at the scene.

If my story is a reasonably accurate description of those times and places, then the real loss of “rights” was not realized by store owners but by their bigoted white customers. In such a case, I don’t see how we can avoid a utilitarian calculus of the psychic gains and losses involved, which is probably what commenters are getting at when they talk about “doing what’s right.”

Does the fact that the state provides a police force to defend my property rights mean I needn’t buy locks for my doors? Should the state subsidize door locks as a means to minimize police costs?

Does the fact that government subsidizes health costs mean the state should pay non-smokers to continue to refrain from smoking? Can I extort money from the state by threatening to exercise my right to smoke?

Does the fact that the state provides roads mean that the state should also subsidize my shock-absorbers to minimize the impact of my car on the road?

Does the fact that I have a right to free speech, and to call upon the state to defend my right, mean the state should offer to compensate everyone who refrains from screaming racial epithets at their neighbors?

I disagree that the Civil Rights Act is an intrusion in property rights. The CRA defines property rights, and it does not make sense to say that property rights are decreased because freedom from discrimination is a property right.

Imagine a law which gave you the property right to exclude me from looking at your property. If that law is repealed you lose one of your property rights, but I gain the property right to use my eyes any way I want. All property rights are multi-dimensional in this way. The right to exclude necessarily precludes freedom from exclusion.

It is only a point of detail, but the UK, “Mother of Parliaments” is not a republic and has no written constitution.

Pertaining to Mr. Paul, even if he is a natural rights libertarian, where property rights trumps all (as a result of the logical reasoning that comes from their viewpoint.)He should still know better than to say something like that out loud knowing that people will, using a sloppy shorthand thinking and with the help of a media, looking for sales/attention, equate that with simple racism. Of all the things libertarians hope to accomplish, abolishing the civil rights act, since it is a part of increasing government control of private enterprise, is far down the list. Surely he could have found more relevant examples of controversial government imposition to argue against.

As someone mentioned previously, this is not against the law, but if you are trying to win a political office and advance your point of view (which, in our case, very few people happen to agree with. It has always amazed me that the pro union/anti-immigration/pro social consevative democrats haven’t formed an aliance with social conservative/Nationalist Republicans, as their views are more compatible than the traditional true conservative/neo liberal/ libertarian view and they would comprise a much larger group than the rest of us. He would be much better off trying to change laws that are more relevant to the everyday citizen. Presumably, most of us don’t belive in the power of martyrs, so all of that losing we do in the name of ideological purity doesn’t earn us a future win.

will hispanic police in arizona be less likely to ask people to present their documentation?

while attitudes regarding race (in the u.s.) may have changed significantly since the civil rights act, i dont think this is a causal relationship.

1930’s and 1940’s: predominantly black musicians entertaining a predominantly white audience. reefer madness. integrated military service. jesse owens.
1950’s and 1960’s: the rat pack. elvis (the whiter face of black rock n’ roll) chuck cooper. hank aaron.
70’s -> : jimi hendrix. michael jordan. tiger woods. eminem (the whiter face of black hip – hop)

as a veteran, i think that the integration of the armed services may be the most important factor. my roommate is a retired marine who just happens to have been born in puerto rico. i definetly see him as a marine long before i see him as a puerto rican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation#Desegregation_in_the_military

‘In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing military units–all of which were totally white in composition. Consequently, he made the decision to allow Afro-American soldiers to pick up a gun and join the white military units to fight in combat for the first time.’

i think ike ran through a cost-benefit analysis and came to the right conclusion.

And I agree. But do you believe that a business engaged in an activity that is reviled by a vast majority of the country should receive state sanctions and endorsements to do so?

Would it be fair, in your opinion, to decriminalize racial and gender discrimination and at the same time withhold any form of publicly provided benefit from that business?

I’ve mentioned occupancy permits and fire inspections for one, but maybe also building code enforcement, street lights, FDIC protection on their bank accounts, a strong and freely converable currency etc. Even cases where the business pays for an inspection, the office and administration of that office is supported by the voting public.

I think a lot of people say they don’t want government intrusion but they are happy to reap the rewards of that government when it suits them

But the point is just as valid if you say “the world is less efficient with both protectionist and racist attitudes”. And that is something we can measure. Cultural norms such as racism and gender bias result in a nation that is not as productive as it could be. That is fact. No morality involved.

In the developing world people are starving to death yet they refuse to allow the women there to own property or go to work. Economic stagnation is driving FDI out of countries left and right but the answer that this country arrived at 50 years ago (remove all arbitrary barriers to commerce) still smacks of Northern imperialism.