A Libertarian Defense of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

被引:0
作者
William Kline
机构
[1] University of Illinois,Department of Management, Marketing and Operations, College of Business and Management
[2] Springfield,undefined
来源
Journal of Business Ethics | 2023年 / 185卷
关键词
Libertarian; Civil Rights; Discrimination;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Twice in the Journal of Business Ethics, Walter Block provides a libertarian argument that The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unjust because it is a violation of a business’s property rights and therefore ought to be repealed. No libertarian reply to Block has ever been given, creating the mistaken impression that his argument is the true representation of libertarian theory with regards to civil rights. This paper focuses on Title II and argues that both Block, and this prevailing opinion of libertarian theory, are wrong. There are different types of libertarian theory. Block’s theory of natural rights is one of them, but there is another strain of libertarian thought that embraces the common law, at least as it existed up until the late 1800’s. This paper explicates a libertarian argument, based on the common law, which supports and defends Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the evolution of contracts via assumpsit arguments, found in Blackstone’s Commentaries, endogenously and consistently gives rise to the obligation to serve all. Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is consistent with this common law tradition on public accommodations. Libertarian arguments that accept the common law on contracts ought also to accept common law doctrine on public accommodations and, perforce, the justness of Title II.
引用
收藏
页码:75 / 87
页数:12
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]  
Ames JB(1888)The history of assumpsit. I. Express Assumpsit Harvard Law Review 2 1-19
[2]  
Bagenstos SR(2014)The unrelenting libertarian challenge to public accommodations law Stanford Law Review 66 1205-1240
[3]  
Block W(1992)Discrimination: An interdisciplinary analysis Journal of Business Ethics 11 241-254
[4]  
Block W(1998)Compromising the uncompromisable: Discrimination American Journal of Economics and Sociology 57 223-237
[5]  
Burdick CK(1911)The origin of the peculiar duties of public service companies. Part I Columbia Law Review 11 514-531
[6]  
Burdick CK(1911)The origin of the peculiar duties of public service companies Part III. Columbia Law Review 11 743-764
[7]  
Freeman RE(2002)Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense Business Ethics Quarterly 12 331-349
[8]  
Phillips RA(2016)Remember the common law Cato Policy Report, XXXVIII 2 5-8
[9]  
Harper J(1988)Incomplete contracts and the theory of the firm Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 4 119-139
[10]  
Hart OD(2005)Hayek, the common law, and fluid drive NYU Journal of Law & Liberty 1 79-110