So I was discussing the Oregon baker incident where those bakers got slapped by the strong arm of the government for not baking a cake for a gay couple.
Me and the person I was discussing this with were in agreement that the bakers should not have been penalized by law for not wanting to bake the cake. I pointed out nobody should be forced to engage in a transaction with anyone they don't want to, whether they are discriminating against them because of their sexuality, race, gender, etc.
Suddenly me and the person I was discussing with were no longer in agreement. He said you cannot discriminate because of race. I pointed out this was hypocritical of him, since he is okay with discriminating against someone because of their sexuality, but not because of their race. He didn't seem to care. Then he came out with this straw-man scenario:
He said what if a black man is trying to buy food for his family in a small, dominantly white neighborhood in the deep South. What if they refuse service to him and there are no other stores nearby? -- and there aren't enough black people in the neighborhood to justify a competitor opening a competing grocery store that caters to all races? How will he feed his family and what would black people do in this scenario if the government didn't force people to serve everyone?
I kind of fell victim to this strong man argument. I did not really have a reply that satisfied this "lonely black man in a white racist neighborhood trying to feed his family" scenario.
What would your replies have been? I want to strengthen my understanding of the argument so I can be ready next time someone comes at me with a scenario like this.
The issue is by and large a moot one in this day and age. Discriminating against blacks, for instance, would pretty much be a bankrupting move in most any industry. The calls for boycotting would be deafening.
The issue is not whether or not it is right for blacks to be discriminated against. The issue is whether or not property rights are to be respected. A storefront is as much as one's property as their home. One's home being their castle, as it is; regardless of reasoning the owner has ultimate say so in who is to be allowed in, who he will conduct business with, etc. That would go for any and all reasons.
Now might this lead to racists practicing discriminatory practices? Yes, it would, naturally. But what are the alternatives? That the obese be guaranteed a job as a personal trainer (as actually happened)? That small businesses be put into debt to comply with the myriad of laws catering to the handicapped? That rather than the discrimination being out in the open and actions taken to affect its change, it is hidden? They can still deny service to blacks, after all (so long as they don't mention that that is their motivation for doing so). They can still enact protectionist policies aimed at keeping blacks away from here or there. The police can even still murder black men for engaging in entrepreneurial endeavors such as, but not limited to, selling cigarettes. But so long as they don't openly make it about race, government has "solved" the problem.
I call bullshit.
This even ignores the fact that I'd much prefer to know if someone senselessly despises me because of my race. It's not something I'd want to let fester, or to be unsure about. Is the food being tampered with? Might the food be tampered with? Might other ill consequences arise from associating with someone who blindly hates you? Why wouldn't they wish to
not do business with them? I wouldn't wish to do business with someone I know might be looking to use, con, overcharge, poison etc.
They never stopped to think that if someone
really hates blacks, for instance, it might not be wise to buy food from him in the first damn place. Discriminatory practices ought not have the veil of free or fair practices simply because by law they are forced to bite their tongue. I'd much rather know for certain that a given person despises me, hates me, or wishes me harm before I buy products that could be dangerous if not stored properly etc.
The people themselves would be better off to know they are viewed with hostility before transacting with another.
But in many cases, racial differences are overlooked simply because it is a customer base. Considering it was the government enforcing the Jim Crow laws to begin with, and it was the Supreme Court that has so often ruled on the side of evil, I wouldn't trust them with the task of making everyone accept everyone, if even such a feat was possible.
Here there are certain businesses who go out of their way to advertise the fact that English is the 'preferred' language when frequenting their establishment. That's cool,
I guess; speaking American in America and what not, hoo rah, but let's be realistic. I question their business sense. If I lived in a predominantly Spanish speaking section operating a business front, trust and believe it would be a bilingual establishment. Idgaf if they sign language me what they want. It wouldn't matter to me a bit to offer my broken Spanglish in coming to an understanding of the terms of the transaction.
Not to mention there is soon going to be same day delivery of grocery goods, electronics, you name it. Amazon said they'd probably have to hire another million to make it happen. Wal-Mart is jumping aboard that ship as well.
In short, it is natural for people to trade. At least, natural to me and obviously many others. As Banana already pointed out, it was the government segregating rail cars. I'm sure many other accommodations were expensive to the local store front and they'd rather have not complied.
Quite simply, a truly free market would make this issue relatively a nonissue. Shipping costs come down any lower and I'll mail the man groceries for five cents an item above spot. Banana and others summed it up much better than I am able to put into words.
Just offering a few thoughts on that particular appeal to emotion.
PS... what was said about 'the audience' is probably the best advice that could be offered. When one does not wish to understand, it's futile to attempt to make them do so. Other people on the fence reading it might make it worth the time of thoughtfully responding with reason and logic. Ben Bernanke, of course, regardless of the selling of his soul, could never come around to Austrian economics. And I don't think mangled baby's bodies particularly moves Barack Obama.
