[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
In a scenario where more people would support a racist establishment I think you have to resort to the other argument against the Act that I mentioned. The argument that complete respect of private property is necessary for a free society.

[/ QUOTE ] But you didn't make this argument, possibly because it is very difficult to sustain.

One problem with these arguments is that they don't mention WHO is being made free; namely, the owner of the property. The non-owners of the property are made un-free when one individual is given complete control of a piece of property. To illustrate, suppose Bob appropriates a previously unowned piece of property, or a piece of public or otherwise held in common property. Before I could use what is now Bob's property to have a picnic or to play baseball (or use it in a number of other ways). Now, if I go onto Bob's property without his permission, some entity (government or private security firms) will remove me and coercively deprive me of my freedom to act in that way. Hence private property creates both freedom and unfreedom, because it restricts some people's freedom in order to create freedom for others.