I really don't think that's a fair characterization. Libertarianism is/was not about who could call "dibs" on whatever piece of allegedly unclaimed property happened to be lying around.
It most certainly was. Locke argued that natural resources themselves were valueless until humans applied labor, which rendered them property. From
page 126:
Though the earth and all inferior creatures,—says Locke,—be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has a right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say are properly his. Whatever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least when there is enough and as good left in common for others.
Traditionally, libertarians are concerned with the voluntariness of transactions between the people involved. Whether or not either actually owned the property in question is really an inquiry that preceded the whole libertarian concern over voluntariness of transactions/interactions. A libertarian would be just as open as anyone else (except perhaps a marxist) to an argument that they didn't own the property in question, and therefore didn't have the right to sell it.
I agree. However, the reason I made my original remark is because OptimusPrime is fond of asserting the same first principles found in canonical texts, and my point to him/her is that their position is often a moving target between those texts and more modern schools of thought, so it is hard to really nail down and understand their position in order to argue against it. That's all.
Also, libertarian itself has become so fractured that everyone argues based on their own personal definition of the word, so it has basically become impossible to discuss without agreeing to first fully define terms.
Anyway, for me at least, I'm very troubled by the idea of some family going on a trip, and not knowing if they're going to be able to stay in a hotel or not because the manager might be a bigot. Or whether they'll be able to get needed food, or gas, because someone refuses to sell it to them. As libertarian as I am, I still support public accommodation laws designed to prevent that.
I applaud you.
At the same time, I'm also troubled by the idea that we can legally force a photographer to cover an event he doesn't support, or a caterer to cater an event he/she finds offensive, or a baker to prepare a special item for something he/she doesn't support. Maybe it's the difference between making available a product that is already for sale, versus compelling specific labor from people. Or maybe a difference between refusing to serve a person, and refusing to participate in an event.
Not sure if it would even be possible to draft legislation that wouldn't be distorted in one direction or the other by courts. But at least for me, there's a distinction that matters somewhere in there.
Totally understand the distinction, and I am very hesitant to compel speech. My position starts before we get to that distinction, though.
I believe religion is a private (meaning can exclude the public), non commercial act. Once someone enters the public, commercial arena and offers a product, then they need to offer that product to everyone and they may not assert any religious rights.
