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

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Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unjust because it is a violation of a business’s property rights and therefore ought to be repealed.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 im...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of business ethics 2023-06, Vol.185 (1), p.75-87
1. Verfasser: Kline, William
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 87
container_issue 1
container_start_page 75
container_title Journal of business ethics
container_volume 185
creator Kline, William
description 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Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unjust because it is a violation of a business’s property rights and therefore ought to be repealed.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.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10551-022-05200-3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2818511731</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2818511731</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-881497e6acb5a3018939925e68e3f9f6037c86f76f13cc1bacff9bfb1960fec83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1LAzEQxYMoWKv_gKeA59WZzfdFKPWrUBCknsNuSNpI3dVkK_jfm7pCb85lBub33oNHyCXCNQKom4wgBFZQ1xWIGqBiR2SCQrEKpFHHZAIoVcUF56fkLOc3KCOQT8jtjC5j69PQpNh09M4H32VP-0BXcdh6uljs72HjKRrJ6Tx-xS19ievNkOnMDefkJDTb7C_-9pS8Ptyv5k_V8vlxMZ8tK8fBDJXWyI3ysnGtaBigNsyYWnipPQsmSGDKaRmUDMicw7ZxIZg2tCUTgneaTcnV6PuR-s-dz4N963epK5G21qgFomJYqHqkXOpzTj7YjxTfm_RtEey-Jzv2ZEtP9rcny4qIjiLv-i7mg0RzWSullSwIG5Fcnt3ap0P6P8Y_tRdx3w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2818511731</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Libertarian Defense of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act</title><source>Education Source</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Kline, William</creator><creatorcontrib>Kline, William</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-4544</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0697</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10551-022-05200-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Business and Management ; Business Ethics ; Civil rights ; Common law ; Contracts ; Education ; Ethics ; Human rights ; Libertarianism ; Management ; Original Paper ; Philosophy ; Property rights ; Quality of Life Research ; Theory</subject><ispartof>Journal of business ethics, 2023-06, Vol.185 (1), p.75-87</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-881497e6acb5a3018939925e68e3f9f6037c86f76f13cc1bacff9bfb1960fec83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-881497e6acb5a3018939925e68e3f9f6037c86f76f13cc1bacff9bfb1960fec83</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2900-7498</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10551-022-05200-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-022-05200-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27843,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kline, William</creatorcontrib><title>A Libertarian Defense of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act</title><title>Journal of business ethics</title><addtitle>J Bus Ethics</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Business and Management</subject><subject>Business Ethics</subject><subject>Civil rights</subject><subject>Common law</subject><subject>Contracts</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Human rights</subject><subject>Libertarianism</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Property rights</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Theory</subject><issn>0167-4544</issn><issn>1573-0697</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1LAzEQxYMoWKv_gKeA59WZzfdFKPWrUBCknsNuSNpI3dVkK_jfm7pCb85lBub33oNHyCXCNQKom4wgBFZQ1xWIGqBiR2SCQrEKpFHHZAIoVcUF56fkLOc3KCOQT8jtjC5j69PQpNh09M4H32VP-0BXcdh6uljs72HjKRrJ6Tx-xS19ievNkOnMDefkJDTb7C_-9pS8Ptyv5k_V8vlxMZ8tK8fBDJXWyI3ysnGtaBigNsyYWnipPQsmSGDKaRmUDMicw7ZxIZg2tCUTgneaTcnV6PuR-s-dz4N963epK5G21qgFomJYqHqkXOpzTj7YjxTfm_RtEey-Jzv2ZEtP9rcny4qIjiLv-i7mg0RzWSullSwIG5Fcnt3ap0P6P8Y_tRdx3w</recordid><startdate>20230601</startdate><enddate>20230601</enddate><creator>Kline, William</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>OQ6</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K8~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2900-7498</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230601</creationdate><title>A Libertarian Defense of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act</title><author>Kline, William</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c409t-881497e6acb5a3018939925e68e3f9f6037c86f76f13cc1bacff9bfb1960fec83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Business and Management</topic><topic>Business Ethics</topic><topic>Civil rights</topic><topic>Common law</topic><topic>Contracts</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Human rights</topic><topic>Libertarianism</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Property rights</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kline, William</creatorcontrib><collection>ECONIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Art, Design &amp; Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>DELNET Management Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of business ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kline, William</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Libertarian Defense of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act</atitle><jtitle>Journal of business ethics</jtitle><stitle>J Bus Ethics</stitle><date>2023-06-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>185</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>75</spage><epage>87</epage><pages>75-87</pages><issn>0167-4544</issn><eissn>1573-0697</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10551-022-05200-3</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2900-7498</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-4544
ispartof Journal of business ethics, 2023-06, Vol.185 (1), p.75-87
issn 0167-4544
1573-0697
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2818511731
source Education Source; PAIS Index; SpringerLink Journals; Business Source Complete
subjects Business and Management
Business Ethics
Civil rights
Common law
Contracts
Education
Ethics
Human rights
Libertarianism
Management
Original Paper
Philosophy
Property rights
Quality of Life Research
Theory
title A Libertarian Defense of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T04%3A45%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Libertarian%20Defense%20of%20Title%20II%20of%20the%201964%20Civil%20Rights%20Act&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20business%20ethics&rft.au=Kline,%20William&rft.date=2023-06-01&rft.volume=185&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=75&rft.epage=87&rft.pages=75-87&rft.issn=0167-4544&rft.eissn=1573-0697&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10551-022-05200-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2818511731%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2818511731&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true