@gourimoko
I’m not going to drag this discussion out into a free-for-all of multiple issues so I’m not going to respond to everything in your post because I want to keep this on point.
Your taxation example is a good one
given our current system of taxation. But there is another system of taxation that, if implemented, would move things from being compulsory to voluntary, and thus, not violate the liberty and property rights of individuals. I won’t get into the details here because this is not the thread for it. Suffice it to say, I have considered the taxation objection in prior discussions of this topic with other people and I have the answer that refutes it.
Your example of imprisonment is also a good one, and one for which I do not have an answer at the moment. I might be willing to concede that Lockean principle to you, but honestly I’ll have to do some serious thinking about it. I would note that on the surface, even if your position on this does turn out to be reasonable enough for me to accept, right now I do not see a legitimate correlation between say a murderer and a businessman who won’t supply flowers for a gay wedding. The government can make anything it has the necessary number of votes for illegal, but that doesn't justify the legitimacy of those laws or necessarily ascribe some moral goodness to them.
One thing I am a bit perplexed by is your habit of responding to my points with this question of, “According to whom?”, as if what’s most important is that I provide authoritative support for my positions. You seem to be very hung up on my giving names of people who originally formulated the ideas I’m championing and I’m not sure why that is. Do you honestly think that the individual who originated an idea has any bearing on that idea’s correctness or legitimacy? Surely you aren't resorting to
argumentum ad verecundiam, are you? I mean, I get that you’re trying to lay out a framework for your personal opinions and in doing so you are bringing up the positions of other philosophers. But why are you so adamant that I attach names to principles I’m trying to convey? Is not a discussion of principles themselves the best way to determine their validity? I mean, I don’t care if a principle is advocated by Gandhi or Big Bird; a good, sound, consistent principle is just that, no matter who formulated it.
I’m certainly not going to get into a “battle of philosophers” with you. As you pointed out I am very familiar with Locke, Hobbes, and Kant, having studied all of them in depth while I was earning my degree in philosophy. I agree with some of their conclusions and disagree with others.
But as many would say, “familiarity breeds contempt” and I find that a constant appeal to particular philosophers does little to further the discussion of issues. For every Locke, Kant, or Hobbes quote you muster in support of your political/economic philosophy, I can roll out a Burlamaqui, von Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard quote in support of my political/economic philosophy. Name-dropping isn’t going to win any arguments between two people who have studied logic and know fallacious reasoning when they see it.
Ultimately this discussion doesn't come down to which of us holds the most “philosopher cards” in his hand. It’s about whose philosophy of the proper relationship of “personal freedom to collective good” is the most logically sound and consistent with the nature of man and the nature of government. And ultimately in here, I don’t care what Locke or Bentham or Grotius or Burlamaqui or Gordon say about these issues (I can go down into my basement library and pull their writings off the shelves and read them again myself if I want). In here I’m more interested in what the opinions are of the RCF posters and how they justify them.
Indeed,
Well I'll try to be concise and go in kind of bullet, point for point response.
1) I don't know if voluntary taxation would work. It's an interesting concept, but it is a massive departure from what most nations in the world use today. I think there's good reason we utilize a compulsory tax system, and I think those reasons are fairly obvious.
2) I'm not trying to draw comparisons between murders and those who would refuse service; but instead, I am demonstrating that the social contract we have as a people with the state empowers us to enact laws and the state to enforce those laws. Laws, by their nature, are restrictive, but must respect the natural rights inherent to all as well as the civil rights recognized by society.
In this process, we as a people, surrender a portion of our own "self-determination," freedom, and individual power in order to perpetuate a functioning society governed by the people through the state. This is the nature of any social contract, and there is a continual balancing act between the rights, duties, and responsibilities of individuals and that of the state.
Civil rights laws do not violate anyone's rights; they define the balance between the rights of sellers and buyers as recognized by all, enacted by the people's representatives. We consider this balance reasonable because while one right is slightly diminished (the right to determine whom to sell to), another right is bolsters (the right to be free from discrimination; or as Kant put it, the right of equality).
Many of these rights are inherently "negative" in that they impose restrictions on others. Property rights are an example of negative rights. I cannot come and live on your land, because you "own" it, and society was established, according to Jefferson and Locke, for the sole purpose of acknowledging and protecting that right.
However, in a State of Nature, there is no concept of ownership of a natural resource; there is no such thing as property.
So the question is really, what is the ethical or moral answer to this question of rights? Is it in the interest of either the individual or society to permit discrimination in public accommodations, when society, recognizably, has the power to stop it?
I think you'll find that without wholly overshadowing the value of the sum of the rights individual being discriminated against as well as the interests of society as a whole; such an ethical argument is nearly impossible to make. This is why I, and many others, reference Kant when discussing fundamental rights, because his philosophy deeply explored these issues on logical and ethical basis.
3) Name dropping. I'm not appealing to the authority of Kant or Locke or anyone else. When I say "according to who" it is a genuine question.
Oftentimes in these debates, particularly when debating libertarian philosophy, complex concepts that were historically viewed as ethical arguments are instead posited as a
factual bases within the premise of an argument for what most might consider overly restricted government.
To that end, I ask "according to who" for the same reason
@NasstyNate stated that these arguments tend to be ad hoc and arbitrarily defined within the moment. I wholeheartedly agree with that observation.
I think that libertarianism, in this context, and when using it to draw this conclusion; makes little sense. It relies on the
presupposition that the rights to property supersede all other rights within a society.
Furthermore, this argument requires us to ignore the value of various rights; ignore (conveniently) clearly derived rights while championing others (property vs equality); and to depend on a very specific and unique interpretation of natural law that is neither common, well-defined, or widely accepted.
So when I say "according to who" I am not saying an original argument cannot be made; but in that, I think answering "myself" demonstrates that this
is an original line of reasoning, and not necessary couched (as it would appear to be on first glance) in the views of the philosophers who have shaped Western society.
I also ask because if someone were to say "person x" then we can greater understand their point of view without them fully articulating the total philosophy of "person x" within the confines of a single RCF post.
But with that, I have no problem simply debating the pure ethical logic of the question at hand, that being:
Given: both the right to sell goods and the right to equality (freedom from discrimination) have to be balanced to maintain social order.
With that, does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 impose an unreasonable or burdensome restriction on the exercise of the right to sell goods in order to maintain the rights of equality with respect to the individual and to the social order as a whole?
If the answer is no, that Civil Rights Act is reasonable, and doesn't impose a burdensome restriction; then logically, where is the disagreement?