← Articles · Social, Civil, Rights, Government
A Criticism Of The Civil Rights Act of 1964
By WesternLibertarian ·
Introduction
One of the most controversial libertarian positions is the abolition and/or reform of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the Act was intended to combat discrimination and protect equal rights, It actually creates conflicts with principles of self-ownership, private property rights and freedom of association. In this article, I will be going over my personal criticisms of the Civil Rights Act, and explaining how they conflict with these principles.
1. Violation(s) of Freedom Of Association
One of the foundational principles of libertarianism is that every individual has the right to self-ownership, which means you have the right to your own body, labor, choices and actions, as long as you don't violate the non-aggression principle against another individual. You have the right to eat whatever you please, drink whatever you please, do whatever drugs you please. Under one fundamental limitation being that your freedom ends when you violate the rights of another person
"So how does this tie into the Civil Rights Act?"
The Civil Rights Act creates a conflict with these basic principles of self-ownership and the non-agression principle. As they place legal restrictions on decisions made by individuals and private business owners, who have the right to choose not to associate with anybody for any specific reason, even if the reason is discriminatory or socially disapproved. While the goal of these laws on paper is to "prevent discrimination", it really just translates to:
"We are the government and we will punish if you don't get along with each other."
Regardless of whether discrimination was intentional, the Act restricts the ability of private business to refuse certain commercial relationships on grounds of discrimination.
2. Private Property Rights
(While there are other articles on the larty about private property and what it actually means to "own property", I would recommend you read those articles and come back here once you are finished.)
Okay, let's create the scenario that you own a business. This business is a pancake shop. You spent two years building it from the ground up, You purchased the property and own it outright. You have full-time employees who prepare, cook and serve the pancakes. And you voluntarily engage in the free market with customers by selling each pancake for 50¢. Business explodes.
By all reasonable definitions of ownership, You own and operate everything within the business. The equipment to cook the food, the tables, the ingredients, and even the property that building sits on. You pay for annual and biannual costs such as power, gas and water.
Now imagine one day, a problematic customer walks into your restaurant. You decide that you no longer want this person on your property
From the perspective of true property ownership rights, you are exercising your rights to associate or disassociate with any customer or individual you please.
However, the government determines that your refusal to serve this customer constitutes unlawful discrimination. You could potentially face legal penalties, lawsuits, fines or other government enforcement actions
This creates a question: If you genuinely and legally own the property, why should the government have the right to decide who you must allow onto it, and whom you must conduct business with?
Regardless of whether the end-goal of government intervention is to prevent "discrimination". Can an individual truly be said to own property if the government can compel them to use that property in ways they would otherwise refuse?
3. Voluntary Consequences
Let's continue the scenario of your pancake shop, Let's say one day, business has been rough and you start cutting costs, you start training your employees less, you pay for cheaper ingredients. One day, a family of insects flies into the mix for your pancakes, your employees don't notice this and serve a huge batch to customers. That batch of customers become seriously ill
Its found out from a whistleblower, that they've overheard you talking about cutting business costs, not paying for proper inspections or insect control. And everyone hears about it.
Instead of the government stepping in, As I said before about the foundational principles of self-ownership, many of your recent customers exercise their rights, and freedom of association by choosing to boycott your pancake shop. Employees quit, Competitors can take your customers, and the community publicly condemns your shop.
Citizens band together and use their freedom of association to disassociate with your pancake shop, and it eventually has a financial collapse where the business is no longer sustainable and it permanently closes. And this all happens naturally without the government or an authoritative figure stepping in.
"So, what are you getting at here?"
Simple, the government should not have the authority to coerce private business owners into associations that they would otherwise voluntarily avoid. Just as individuals have the right to associate or disassociate with that private business.
Even though this example wasn't about discrimination, It demonstrates the important principle that government coercion isn't the only mechanism through which society can respond to harmful business choices.
In this case, the business ultimately failed and permanently closed. Not because the government ordered it to close, but individuals voluntarily withdrew their own support.
Fin
Thanks for reading! This is my first article and i was shitfaced at 1am when writing this, so if there are any flaws in my argument, Feel free to point them out to me, I'm still learning and love being proven wrong as it helps me grow.