Michelle Malkin passes on the story of a Danish pizzeria owner, Aage Bjerre, who got in trouble with the law. Seems that he refused to serve French or German customers because of their governments’ decision not to stand by President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. Because he refused to pay the fine, Bjerre’s going to spend a few days in jail. Malkin thanks the man for his support and implies that he’s some sort of hero.
I disagree. If Danish law requires that a restaurateur not discriminate against customers based on nationality, then he is obliged to obey that law and not discriminate against people based on nationality.
But legal issues aside, his actions are still reprehensible. Imagine, for example, if Bjerre refused to serve Catholics because he disagreed with the pope’s stand on birth control. Or if he refused to serve senior citizens because he disagrees with government-funded pension programs. What these, too, be right?
Discrimination based on nationality is no less bigoted than discrimination based on age, gender, race, or religion. That Bjerre chooses to dress up his bigotry with American flags and pictures of President Bush and Laura Bush does not change the fundamental nature of his bigotry.
RE: Bruce’s post (July 13, 2005 03:25 PM)
Several of you seem to say a shop owner should be able to turn away anyone – is that correct? I’m curious, who do you want to turn away? A lefty, an African American, an old person, a U.S. Marine, a W.A.S.P, someone in a wheelchair, a little girl with red hair?
Anyone? No. But certainly some on a whim. For grins, I’ll go through your list:
lefty – Hmm. Depends on their ERA. Oh, you mean political lefty. Then yes.
African American – no
old person – no
U.S. Marine – yes
W.A.S.P – WASP no; ASP yes
someone in a wheelchair – no, unless they put themselves in that wheelchair because they got injured in a G8 melee assaulting a cop
little girl with red hair – natural or dye job? 🙂 – no
Notice the pattern for the qualifications? If it’s a biological condition in which one has no control, then the discrimination seems to me to be unwarranted. If it is a politically derived condition, then people should be allowed to make their own judgements.
What’s your point? Why would you want to turn anyone away unless they were creating a disturbance?
People have the freedom to be stupid, or whimsical, or rebellious, or lazy, or activist, or any other number of things that helps them live their lives the way they deem appropriate. They are entities unto themselves with inherent rights that are not relinquished to the contemporaneous assemblage of external governing agents. They reserve a sphere of influence whereby their own rights are not subservient.
Why turn away? Hey, no one said you had to be business savvy. Everyone has the right to drive their business into the ground if they want to; or to make a statement in hopes of satisfying a personal ethic; or to create a business model that loses domestically and gains internationally.
The world is oh-so-idiosyncratic… a reflection of its humanity.
Flipping to get to the other side of the coin, do you endorse government intervention to force you to serve everyone no matter what even though that government contributes nothing to your very real material risk? Do you approve of an external entity to define your ethics and/or rules of operation and have those rules be moving targets subject to episodic reapplication depending on the political flavor ruling the day? Do you have an objection to free-market economic dynamics?
Jason and Phinn,
I understand your point about freedom and not wanting government interference, but I also think you know that such freedom can and will be terribly abused – in fact such freedom has been abused in the past. What if we aren’t talking about shop owner: the extreme is an ER in a private hospital turning people away? But lets use a more ordinary example, a businessman ostracized just because someone doesn’t like him? If the freedom is given, then some will use it like a mafia don, to run people out of business. I guess my real question is: are there some freedom we have to give up in order to get along? We have laws that restrict our freedom – some of them are essential such as “murder is illegal.” The government forces that one on us – if it didn’t we’d live in chaos. Is the Civil Rights Act really a bad law?
AnonymousDrivel
I loved the sentence about “…moving targets subject to episodic reapplication…” it’s very funny because it’s true. No, I don’t have objection to free-market economic dynamics. But on your first point I think we might disagree. Societies stable because of laws. It’s interesting because I think that most people will and can get along without laws, but human kind has proven that without laws there are always a few who will – “over extend their personal space – shove there weight around.” I’m sure you know the value of law, it’s just the extent of law’s application that we may disagree on. If the ideas we’re talking about fall under the Civil Rights Act – then I think it’s a good law. If that mean’s losing some of my freedoms, I’m ok with that. It’s a balancing act, isn’t it, just like the Patriot Act.
Bruce:
I’m not OK with losing some of my freedoms.
Bruce,
Three things: 1) I agree that freedom will be abused, but that’s not really an argument for limiting freedom. If you only have the freedom to do good things, then you don’t really have freedom at all. I believe that cheating on your spouse is morally wrong, but I think people should still be legally allowed to cheat on their spouses.
2) I’m not an absolutist on allowing businesses to have total freedom over their operation, and there are some cases, such as your hospital example, where government would need to step in. However, this is hardly an issue since doctors and other health care workers have legal and professional licenses and certifications that limit what they can and can’t do. But I’m not sure government needs to step in to make sure everyone is getting their fair chance at purchasing a pizza.
3) And this kind of thing probably happens more often than we really recognize. I’ve known of stores that boot out teenagers, the homeless, known or expected shoplifters, etc. I have a friend who was refused service at a bar because the bartender overheard him admitting that he doesn’t tip. I doubt someone with a “Bush/Cheney 2004” button on would get much service in a locally-owned bookstore in a college town. I’ve heard of dance clubs that only allow males who are 25+, while women can be 21+. We turn a blind eye to much of this. I don’t think the Danish pizza guy’s a hero, but he’s not a criminal.
Earth,
I don’t want to make an assumption here or sound condescending, but does that mean you want to wipe criminal law off the books? Does it mean you’re against the Patriot Act? Do you want there to be no laws?
such freedom can and will be terribly abused
With all due respect, this is bullshit.
If someone exercises his freedom, that (by definition) is not “abuse.” It means that he is acting within the scope of his rights.
What you are really saying is that you do not believe that the shopkeeper in this example has this form of freedom. You can have that opinion, of course, but you should just admit that you are not a defender of freedom.
If the freedom is given, then some will use it like a mafia don
Again, bullshit. The problem with the “mafia dons” is that they use aggression to enforce their business dealings. In particular, they extort money from law-abiding businesses by force or the threat of force, and then claim it is for their own good. And they use violence to maintain secrecy and exclude competition.
are there some freedom we have to give up in order to get along?
No. Any behavior that harms others is, by definition, not a form of freedom. Freedom means to be free from harm caused by others, including (but not limited to) various forms of aggression, (but also extends to other forms of harm like theft, fraud, negligence, breaches of contracts, etc.).
We have laws that restrict our freedom – some of them are essential such as “murder is illegal.” The government forces that one on us – if it didn’t we’d live in chaos.
Again, you are confusing your terms.
“Freedom” does not, by definition, include behavior that causes harm to others. Freedom means freedom from aggression (and the other things listed above). Therefore it cannot include the “freedom to commit murder” or “using aggressive violence against others with impunity.” These are nonsensical, self-contradictory phrases.
The correct way to describe it is to say that we have laws that restrict our behavior. The law should be tailored to restrict harmful behavior, which is how it DEFENDS AND SECURES our freedom. When the government enforces laws that restrict our freedom (i.e., non-harmful behavior), then the government goes from being the protector of our freedom to being the destroyer of our freedom.
Is the Civil Rights Act really a bad law?
Yes. Because it undermines the principles of freedom, independence and government by consent of the governed.
The fact that it is promoted on the grounds that it addresses a particularly ugly and politically unpopular aspect of human nature makes it even MORE insidious. People are always willing to take a step down the road of morally unacceptable violence when it is for an purportedly good cause. Remember what they say about the road to Hell.
The end result of laws like this is the promotion of the idea that we are all working at the government’s pleasure. That we are only government functionaries. It is part-and-parcel of the mindset that gives us decisions like Kelo, that says that the government has absolute title to all land and can replace anyone with someone who is a better tax-payer (which is indistinguishable from a feudal serf).
Phinn
You said: “Freedom means to be free from harm caused by others, including (but not limited to) various forms of aggression, (but also extends to other forms of harm like theft, fraud, negligence, breaches of contracts, etc.).”
I’m trying to understand your definition of “harm.” Do you think denial of a business to business deal is not something that can cause harm? If a businessman convinces his friend to run someone out of business (for example by not selling him essential parts) just because he doesn’t like him, isn’t that harm? Economic harm?
“If a businessman convinces his friend to run someone out of business (for example by not selling him essential parts) just because he doesn’t like him, isn’t that harm? Economic harm?”
That’s sort of an odd example. You can refuse to shop at a store where the employees are rude, right? And the store can boot out customers who are rude. Presumably, the rude people in either case are not well liked. So why can’t a businessman refuse to sell something to someone he or his friend doesn’t like?
I’m trying to understand your definition of “harm.” Do you think denial of a business to business deal is not something that can cause harm? If a businessman convinces his friend to run someone out of business (for example by not selling him essential parts) just because he doesn’t like him, isn’t that harm? Economic harm?
No. “Harm” describes a sphere of interests that a person can legitimately claim to deserve protection by the use of force.
In other words, “harm” and “justified use of force” are flip-sides of the same concept — force is justified when someone causes harm (or threatens harm).
“Harm” does not include things that are merely disagreeable, or disfavored, or “something less than optimal for me.”
When someone refuses to do business with someone else (or refuses to associate with someone in any context), that is not a form of harm. That is a purely passive, non-aggressive mode of behavior. The distinction is premised on the idea that you cannot compel someone to act purely for someone else’s benefit. That is what we call “slavery.”
Verbal criticism (non-defamatory, non-violent) is also not a form of harm. Americans seem to understand this concept in the context of the First Amendment.
Also, when someone enters a line of work, that is not a form of “harm” to those who are already in that line of work. Let’s say I enter a market that already has existing producers. I am sure they feel that my doing so is to their detriment (they will have to offer lower prices, a better product, etc.). But if I peacefully and honestly offer my products or services to willing consumers, even if that means that these consumers will be less inclined to patronize the existing producers, then I have not “harmed” anyone. If anything, I have benefitted the consumers.
In your example, you say that some business is “running someone out of business.” That is a self-serving and narrow way of looking at the situation. If I refuse to sell to someone (for whatever reason), that creates a profit opportunity for someone else to do so. I have now created a motivated consumer of whatever I a selling, who will now go out and find other producers.
The only way this behavior could be a form of harm is if I had promised to deliver and then breached that promise (i.e., voluntarily assumed the duty to act), or had otherwise defrauded him into believing that I would act in a certain way. This sort of thing is harmful, and therefore actionable.
People have no trouble understanding the general concept of liberty, volntarism and non-aggression in daily life, but for some insane reason feel that when it comes to economic liberty that the rules suddenly change and all bets are off.
To whomever posted in my name at 4:49 :
What I am saying is making one man serve another man pizza is slavery. Why is the pizza guy in violation of criminal law? Why do you equate this with me wanting anarchy or a state of lawlessness? Why do you insist on forcing this man to SERVE someone he doesn’t want too? Is this guy using force against someone? I don’t think so.
Yeah, and I’d find another public bus company to ride to work. [additional non sequiturs snipped]
Frameone, I was answering Pennywit’s question, which was about a restaurant. Go play in traffic.
This discussion has taken an interesting turn into the freedom to contract and to do business. Any thoughts on market collusion, restraint of trade, and antitrust? How about employment discrimination? Fait housing law? In one way or another, each of these laws restrains the freedom to conduct business. Is this good policy or bad?
–|PW|–
, I bring in religion to gauge reactions to different forms of discrimination. Whether a discriminator can ascertain a customer’s religion is irrelevant to the large question of how Wizbang readers react to particular discriminatory attitudes.–|PW|–Posted by: pennywit at July 13, 2005 12:37 PM
Ah, but PM, you have not explained how, in a pizza parlor, you might imagine some pizzaguy perceives anyone’s “religion” based upon how and what they order as to pizza. But, you have confirmed to me that the issue of religion in the context of this Danish guy’s pizza parlo is pandering…
As in, just throw in an idea that denying pizzas to some people is based in religious intolerance even when it isn’t inorder to “gauge the reactions” of people about an entirely disparate issue than what you’re writing about, what the cited news is about.
So, are we now supposed to be upset about some idea of some possible Danish guy with a pizza parlor, denying Catholics pizzas? And that we Catholics wear that “I’m a Catholic” appearance like an outfit when we go into pizza parlors?
I fail to understand your methods here other than you’re just trolling for emotional responses based upon some implausible projection that discrimination as to natiionalities in Denmark equates with denying pizzas to Catholics anywhere by way of applying our U.S. laws to all possible.
I’m still curious how you could imagine what scenario as to anyone knowing anyone else’s religion within the context of ordering a pizza, such that some idea as to discrimination could ever occur.
People deny service to others all the time. Not all of that merits federal reprimand, and certainly doesn’t represent U.S./federal reprimand for a guy in Denmark.
I’m thinking you just wanted to create discomfort about the issue of discrimination and hoped to incite some religious fervor, despite the inappropriateness of the many tangents.
I’d hardly say that they guy’s behavior was “reprehensible.” Next it’ll be “a sin” that he didn’t serve anchioves to a Yogi.
You’re right he should not have refused to serve the French and German customers. He should have spit in their pizzas or any other food they ordered. LOL. Or he could have added old condoms… naw, I’m getting gross. Nevermind. LOL
I meant used condoms. Not old condoms. Although if one uses a condom doesn’t it become an old condom? I mean, if it’s been used it’s no longer new. Right? Can I get a clarification on this point, please? LOL
RE: Bruce’s “balancing act” post (July 13, 2005 04:36 PM)
That is true and has some validity. I guess on this particular behavioral scale, I tilt considerably more to the right with the individual trumping the right of the group. However, the “Patriot Act” reference puts a chink in my argument. I’m not sure how its application would fit; nevertheless, I’d concede that the group needs protection from the individual given the type of harm in play. The harm is not economic which is the paradigm under which we have been debating… generally speaking.
Actually, were individuals free to make their own decisions and defend their own spheres better, the Patriot Act might not be quite so necessary. Then the onus shifts to the group to defend itself from the individual who is actually defending him/herself. This is all so confusing.
In summary… individual good, group bad – stay out of my cave.
PW and “…thoughts on market collusion, restraint of trade, and antitrust…”:
Just one – anyone have some spare willowbark to chew on? I understand we had some of this floating around here not to long ago.
Earth,
On the 4:49 comment. I’m sorry. I don’t know how that happened. I don’ think I entered your name as mine, but there it is so I must have. About my question:
You said “I’m not OK with losing some of my freedoms.” That seems like it could apply to criminal law (it does restrict certain freedoms – for example, you can’t assault someone just because they called you a name – you don’t have that freedom). It also seems to apply to the Patriot Act (you have to comply at the airport with certain rules, etc. or the government will put you in jail). I’m sure there are other, even better examples. Is it OK to lose these freedoms?
AnonymousDrivel
Sorry if the “Patriot Act” was throwing curves – the conversation just seemed to drift that way. It’s been a good conversation and hard to believe it was started over a pizza!
I’m too lazy to read through the 70 other comments, but I’m going to post my own anyways. It’s a freaking private business… I realize laws are different over there, but if he is not receiving any money from the government, he should be able to discriminate against anyone he wants to. If he’s willing to refuse money, he should have every right to.
Bruce, please stop referring to acts of aggressive violence as a restraint on “freedom.” This terminology makes no sense. At its most basic level, “freedom” means “freedom from aggression.” Get it straight.
Any thoughts on market collusion, restraint of trade, and antitrust? How about employment discrimination? Fait housing law? In one way or another, each of these laws restrains the freedom to conduct business. Is this good policy or bad?
The most destructive form of restraint of trade is the government-sponsored barrier to entry. It is the situation where the existing producers in a field bribe politicians to pass a law keeping other potential producers from entering the market. It takes many forms.
Similarly, the only destructive form of “collusion” is that between gov’t and business. The fault lies with the gov’t, since that is the side of the Unholy Alliance that brings the element of force to the table (usually in the form of one or more barriers to entry).
Again, true monopolies only exist when they are gov’t-sponsored. Such as gov’t sponsorship of railroad monopolies in the 19th and early 20th centuries, or the current telecommunication local monopolies, such as you get at the local level these days.
Effective monopolies also come in the form of gov’t subsidies for established producers that your basic start-up cannot get, thus eliminating any possibility that an entrepreneur can get in on a market. There are a lot of these subsidies in agriculture still lingering around from the New Deal era.
Private monopoplies do not exist in a free market. The point of a monopoly is to raise prices without competition. In a free market, competitors are always free to enter. When prices are raised to an excessive level, that necessarily means that a profit opportunity has been created that a competitor can (and will) exploit. If no such profit opportunity exists, then by definition the price is already at an appropriately low level. There is no other potential scenario.
Show me a purported monopoly, and I will show you a monopoly that either (a) doesn’t actually exist, or (b) exists due to some other gov’t regulation that is the real cause.
Employment discrimination works the same way. If a qualified person is turned down for non-economic reasons (e.g., race discrimination), then that creates an opportunity for a competitor to hire the person at a lower price. The competitor with the non-discriminatory hiring policy thus has a distinct economic advantage. This is precisely the reason that blacks in the US, once truly protected from violence in any meaningful sense to the same degree as whites, began to make far above-average gains in economic progress, year after year, for decades. This progress virtually stopped in the age of the welfare nanny-state.
Bruce:
If I assault someone for calling me a name, I have initiated violence and I am at fault. If I don’t like restrictions in airports I don’t have to fly. That may suck for me but no one is forcing me on that plane. I can not scream fire in a theatre, beat people up, steal, rape, prevent others from commerce, etc. There are a lot of things I don’t have the “freedom” to do in civilization, but not serving pizza to someone I don’t like shouldn’t be one of them. As far as I’m concerned that’s thought policing.
P.S. Thank you for civil discourse. These things often turn into cussing matches, which is about as stupid as refusing service to a Frog.
Also, I defer to the much longer-winded and insightful rants of Phinn and others.
One more post and I’ll let this one rest.
Bruce, please stop referring to acts of aggressive violence as a restraint on “freedom.” This terminology makes no sense. At its most basic level, “freedom” means “freedom from aggression.” Get it straight.
I guess my point Phinn is that I think there is a point where the type of “freedom” we’re discussing can escalate to violence.
I deny service for a good reason, then because I don’t like the guy, then I hate, I discriminate, I terrorize (with words – no physical harm – just words), and then violence. The steps between are all to brief. When is my freedom unacceptable? At which step should it be illegal?
Do you see what I’m saying? There’s a point where this freedom can be used for abuse. Not between reasonable people, but by some.
I’ll put in one more point. Personally I don’t see a lot of difference between physical and mental violence. Admittedly, I was a fat little nerdy boy. I got lots of grief for it. It hurt. It was wrong. Did my classmates have the right to call me fat? Did they have a right to deny me a place on the baseball team during gym or what that their freedom?
Earth,
Ditto on the civil discourse – it is much appreciated!
– I guess based on some of the comments in this thread that little sign you see posted over the cashier station in a great many small businesses…”We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”…. isn’t worth the paper its written on…. But then of course it is…. It is because it doesn’t single out anyone based on color, sex, ethnicity, or religion….
Pennywit,
On this issue i’m a ture libertarian.
I believe private business owners should have freedom to do what they wish with their business. As long as the government does its part to prevent monopolies from forming there shouldn’t be any trouble.
So, if a business wants to descriminate on the basis of Nationality, Sex, Race, Religion, etc, it ought to be allowed to do so.
And those of us who disagree with their business practices can go and shop elsewhere.
I guess my point Phinn is that I think there is a point where the type of “freedom” we’re discussing can escalate to violence.
At that point, by definition, such behavior ceases to be an exercise of freedom. (Unless, of course, we are talking about violence used in an act of self-defense, which is always justified.)
Freedom (in this context, at least) means primarily freedom from aggressive violence.
Therefore, to restrain someone from using aggressive violence cannot be a restraint of freedom. No one is “free” to use aggressive violence.
This is more than a semantic point. It goes to the heart of what it means to be free.
What Pennywit and others here fail to see is that, in this case, when a government forces a shopowner to conduct his business in this way, the government is the one using aggressive violence. Governments can be aggressors, too.
Hmmmm.
The point of all this is that it’s very possible for a business to not deal with specific individuals. It’s just stupid to do things that way as it’ll hurt profits.
But if someone wants to run their business into the ground based on some principle? Go for it, someone else’ll be moving into your former shop very soon.
But there’s a very real difference between what can be done, what should be done and what’s really idiotic to do.