But don't we (libertarians) believe that property owners have the right to use their property as they see fit? If this means denying any customer for any reason, isn't that ok? I don't think it would be very popular or profitable. Because the business won't bring in profits, the owner will have to change policies or go out of business. Perhaps a nice young man will open a business that welcomes everyone and eventually the community will move all their business to him and be better off for it. This man voluntarily made the choice to ruin his business the way he wanted to.
I understand this is not a popular position and most will view this position as racist, discriminatory, etc. Believing in property rights is not racist. There is nothing morally wrong with allowing property owners to use their property how they see fit. However, using the State's
Aggression to force individual property owners to use their property in any way sprang their own will its morally wrong.
Rachel knows many libertarians feel property owners havethe right to use their property however they want. out its another example if where rights have been taken from the individual she transferred to the State by aggression of course. I haven't heard the interview but I would prefer it if Rand said" Yes". It its not an easy task but we want to change the hats and mins of men and women. And telling people what they want to hear will not accomplish or trials.
It seems I'm the only one on this thread that has said anything close to defending the property owners rights. An I wrong?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: