Posts tagged Civil Rights Act of 1964

I oppose civil rights acts because I support civil rights movements

Appearing this month in The Freeman (60.7, September 2010):

Opposing the Civil Rights Act Means Opposing Civil Rights? It Just Ain’t So!

Charles Johnson, September 2010 • Volume: 60 • Issue: 7

Just after winning his Republican primary in May, Rand Paul got himself into a political pickle over his views on property rights and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Having reluctantly discussed concerns about antidiscrimination laws with the Louisville Courier-Journal and NPR, Paul made his now-notorious appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, where Maddow grilled him for 15 minutes on whether he opposed government intervention to stop racial discrimination. After saying he favored overturning government-mandated discrimination, Paul finally admitted that he opposes Title II, which forbids private owners from discriminating in their own businesses.

As he told the Courier-Journal: I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism; I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant; but at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. . . .

Maddow responded: I think wanting to allow private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, because of property rights, is an extreme view. Within a day Progressives were touting the interview as proof of a deep conflict between libertarian defenses of private property and struggles for racial equality. Meanwhile, compromising libertarians like Brink Lindsey reacted by discovering exceptions to libertarian principles—to make room, again, for federal antidiscrimination laws. The entire debate has played out as an argument over libertarianism and extremism, with Progressives and many nominal libertarians both condemning Rand Paul’s simplistic extremism about private property and libertarian rights.

I have little interest in defending Paul but it’s strange to treat him like some case study in the dangers of libertarian extremism. Rand Paul is a conservative, not a libertarian—let alone an extreme one. He’s said as much, in so many words, in repeated interviews. Now, you could simply say, He may be no libertarian, but never mind Rand Paul—what about the issue? Libertarianism opposes government control of private business decisions; taken to extremes, doesn’t that include laws against racist business practices—the civil rights movement’s crowning achievement?

Well, I do have something to say on behalf of extremism. Not on behalf of sacrificing the civil rights movement’s achievements to extreme stands on antistatist principle. Rather, extreme stands on antistatist principle show what the civil rights movement did right, and what it really achieved, without the aid of federal laws.

. . .

[I]f libertarianism has anything to teach about politics, it’s that politics goes beyond politicians; social problems demand social solutions. Discriminatory businesses should be free from legal retaliation—not insulated from the social and economic consequences of their bigotry. What consequences? Whatever consequences you want, so long as they’re peaceful—agitation, confrontation, boycotts, strikes, nonviolent protests.

So when Maddow asks, Should Woolworth’s lunch counters have been allowed to stay segregated? neither she nor Paul seemed to realize that her attempted coup de grace—invoking the sit-in movement’s student martyrs, facing down beatings to desegregate lunch counters—actually offers a perfect libertarian response to her own question.

Because, actually, Woolworth’s lunch counters weren’t desegregated by Title II. The sit-in movement did that. From the Montgomery Bus Boycott onward, the Freedom Movement had won victories, town by town, building movements, holding racist institutions socially and economically accountable. The sit-ins proved the real-world power of the strategy: In Greensboro, N.C., nonviolent sit-in protests drove Woolworth’s to abandon its whites-only policy by July 1960. The Nashville Student Movement, through three months of sit-ins and boycotts, convinced merchants to open all downtown lunch counters in May the same year. Creative protests and grassroots pressure campaigns across the South changed local cultures and dismantled private segregation without legal backing.

Should lunch counters have been allowed to stay segregated? No—but the question is how to disallow it. Bigoted businesses shouldn’t face threats of legal force for their racism. They should face a force much fiercer and more meaningful—the full force of voluntary social organization and a culture of equality. What’s to stop resegregation in a libertarian society? We are. Using the same social power that was dismantling Jim Crow years before legal desegregation.

I oppose civil rights acts because I support civil rights movements—because the forms of social protest they pioneered proved far more courageous, positive, and effective than the litigious quagmires and pale bureaucratic substitutes governments offer.

— Charles Johnson, The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty (September 2010): Opposing the Civil Rights Act Means Opposing Civil Rights? It Just Ain’t So!

You can read the whole thing at The Freeman Online, or in the forthcoming print issue.

Many thanks as always to Sheldon Richman and FEE.

See also:

In a freed market, with no government anti-discrimination laws, what will stop bigoted business owners from resegregating America?

A. We will.

Context-Keeping and Community Organizing. Cato Unbound (2010-06-18):

David Bernstein makes the strongest libertarian case I can imagine for Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His key point—which I fully embrace—is that the Southern states operated the equivalent of a “white supremacist cartel” in public accommodations….

But as Sheldon ultimately argues, there’s more than one way to break a cartel, and starting out with the notion that the *only* options are one kind of federal law or another kind of federal law, is simply to beg the question. We can’t dismiss [direct action by nonviolent social movements] as impractical because it had been working several years before Title II was enacted. … Title II, in other words, was unnecessary. But worse, it was detrimental…. [W]hat is given like a gift can be more easily taken away, while what one secures for oneself by facing down power is less easily lost. … The libertarian answer to bigotry is community organizing.

Friday Lazy Linking

<li><p><a href="">Debate Over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sheldon Richman, <cite>Free Association</cite> (2010-06-16)</a>. <q>I will be participating in an online discussion about the appropriate libertarian position on the 1964 Civil Rights Act as part of the Cato Unbound series. David Bernstein of George Mason University Law School has kicked it off with his essay here. My response will be posted Friday, followed by...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-06-16.)</em></p></li>

Friday Lazy Linking

<li><p><a href="">Dedicated to &quot;the mutualists of the world&quot; Shawn P. Wilbur, <cite>Out of the Libertarian Labyrinth</cite> (2010-05-17)</a>. <q>Charles T. Sprading's 1930 Mutual Service and Cooperation is available for download from Google Books.</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-05-26.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="">Watch Out, Facebook. <cite>Jesse Walker: Reason Magazine articles and blog posts.</cite> (2010-05-26)</a>. "The business press may be filled with rhetoric about 'participatory media' and 'user-generated content,' but the country's most prominent Web 2.0 company treats its participants like a bunch of CompuServe subscribers circa 1994. ..." <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-05-26.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="">Oh No! Sheldon Richman, <cite>Free Association</cite> (2010-05-23)</a>. <q>Conservatives won't want to hear it, but the libertarian alternative to antidiscrimination laws is: COMMUNITY ORGANIZING!Atom</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-05-26.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="">The Welfare State. Sheldon Richman, <cite>Free Association</cite> (2010-05-23)</a>. <q>Despite what you may read at other libertarian sites, the welfare state is not the result of efforts by lazy poor people to enslave and live off the productive classes. Rather, it is the result of efforts by the political-social-corporate elite to subordinate and control the poor for a variety...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-05-26.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="">Free George Donnelly Handbill. DarianW, <cite></cite> (2010-05-24)</a>. <q>Thanks to ALLy James Tuttle for creating a solid handout in support of George Donnelly. Download the .pdf at</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Wednesday 2010-05-26.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="">here&#39;s a sortof interesting piece of political/cultural. Captain Capitulation, <cite>eye of the storm</cite> (2010-05-13)</a>. <q>here&#39;s a sortof interesting piece of political/cultural commentary by mark lilla. he frames the whole thing in terms of &quot;radical individualism&quot;=&quot;the libertarian mob,&quot; as against...well, what? obviously the basic contrast of individualism is to collectivism, but it&#39;s hard to sit there and squarely endorse that term: there are too many...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Thursday 2010-05-27.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="">Arrivals Lounge. Dorothy, <cite>Cat and Girl</cite> (2010-05-27)</a>.  <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Thursday 2010-05-27.)</em></p></li>
<li><p><a href="">Gimme Your Best Just-World Play. cherylcline, <cite>der Blaustrumpf</cite> (2010-05-27)</a>. <q>Come on.  I need it after reading this: Jiang Chun Geng is one of 15 elderly Chinese men and women whom Zhu is treating in his simple village clinic for what locals label “rotten leg disease.” A definitive diagnosis is no longer possible so many decades after the initial exposure...</q> <em style="font-size: smaller">(Linked Thursday 2010-05-27.)</em></p></li>