The Difference Between Morality and Justice

May 28, 2010 at 2:29 pm | Posted in Political | 10 Comments
Tags: civil rigts act, free association, liberty, rachel maddow, rand paul

by Walter Scott Hudson

Elements of the blogosphere remain atwitter over Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul made the case, on The Rachel Maddow Show and elsewhere, that Title II of the act intrudes upon private property rights. Plenty of facepalms commenced. Even among Paul supporters, some felt their candidate mishandled the situation by allowing himself to be caught up in a “theoretical abstract” or “irrelevant philosophy.” More antagonistic critics characterized Paul’s stance as advocacy for racial discrimination, despite Paul’s explicit statements to the contrary. The synthesis of left-wing criticism seems to be; one cannot take a moral stance against racism unless willing to prohibit it by law.

This episode lends itself to clarifying a defining characteristic of libertarianism. Taken literally, libertarianism is simply advocacy of liberty. Liberty is freedom from arbitrary or despotic control. Misinterpretations of libertarianism paint it as a kind of anarchism or government limited to the point of irrelevance (think the United States under the Articles of Confederation). In truth, libertarianism recognizes the necessity for government empowered to exert coercive force in protection of natural rights. It is essentially another name for classical liberalism or paleo-conservatism of the type advocated by Ronald Regan in his 1964 stump speech for Barry Goldwater.

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.

Through Jefferson, our forefathers declared in defiance of a king; “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” That is the only purpose of government, to secure inalienable rights.

Rand Paul’s issue with Title II of the Civil Rights Act is that it intrudes upon those rights. Specifically, it dictates to business owners whom they will do business with. Though he opposes Paul’s position, Race-Talk author Stephen Menendian demonstrates a solid grasp of the argument:

[Paul's] view is that, while private racial discrimination is anathema and despicable, it’s not something that the government should regulate. His argument, a libertarian argument, is that regulating private discrimination goes beyond the sphere of government authority. In addition, he argues, private discrimination is better regulated by market forces. In his view, and in the view of many libertarians, the private market would regulate and weed out businesses that discriminate, since business with what economists call a ‘taste for discrimination’ would lose patrons.

If indeed Paul stated “private discrimination is better regulated by market forces,” it was a misstatement which sidesteps the relevant point. The objective of government ought not be the arbitrary regulation of behavior. Rather, government ought to regulate behavior which violates an individual’s natural rights. Private racial discrimination, while distasteful and reprehensible, does not violate anyone’s natural rights. It therefore matters not whether government or market forces do a better job of regulating private discrimination. It is, as Menendian dutifully represents, simply beyond the sphere of government authority.

Where Menendian and other critics err is in equating morality with justice, using the two interchangeably:

Discrimination [is] about morality, fairness, and a basic conception of equality; it’s about justice.

…

There is a broad literature in economics about the efficiency of slavery, and whether, in time, the institution of slavery would have withered and died, as it did in many northern states.   This literature, while fascinating, is beside the point.   The abolition of slavery was a moral imperative, not an economic one.

It is true; the elimination of slavery was a moral imperative. So too is the elimination of racial discrimination. However, government’s imperative is not moral. Government’s imperative is justice. Slavery was not simply immoral; it was unjust.

Though they are related, there is a crucial difference between morality and justice. Justice balances the rights of each individual. Morality dictates how individuals ought to conduct themselves. Morality may dictate you should give to the poor. Justice does not, because what is yours is not anyone else’s until freely given.

The same applies to racial discrimination in the private sector. One ought not discriminate against customers based on race; it is immoral to do so. But it is not unjust to do so, because no one is owed wares or services in trade. If government is utilized to coerce individuals into doing business with others, it is both unjust and immoral.