The person who assumes the mantle of society in order to self-righteously dictate how you must live has carved an idol called ‘the greater good’ and has fallen on his knees to worship it as God. But there is no social good greater than the individual, without whom society itself does not exist.
– Wendy McElroy, I the Person versus We the People
Jorg Guido Hulsmann writing in today’s Mises Daily:
But it’s not sufficient that the people tell government officials what they should be doing. It is equally important, if not more important, to dictate how much money the government will have to achieve those ends. So, it is not enough to tell the government that it will only protect private property. This mandate could be pursued with $100,000 or a billion dollars depending on what the people are willing to pay. So if the budget is not controlled, a limited mandate in itself offers no limitation on taxation or how much money is spent.
That’s the title of my new piece at Mises.org. In it, I outline the problems with public accommodation not just in terms of the types of problems it creates, but logical flaws with the doctrine itself. I highlight three specific problems:
1. Public accommodation turns the law into a mechanism for social engineering.
2. Public accommodation leads to unenforceable laws.
3. Public accommodation seizes control of businesses from their rightful owners.
This is by far my most controversial article yet. Public accommodation comes from the Civil Rights Act. It’s the vehicle by which the state enforces desegregation. Criticizing it entails undermining what the vast majority of people understand to be the culmination of the Civil Rights Movement.
But truth is truth. Public accommodation is a vehicle for tyranny. There are far better ways to advance the cause of equal rights—a cause I totally support—than with state-endorsed violence.