Discrimination Requires Government Intervention

In a previous post I wrestled with how someone who supports a small government should feel about Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination, even by a private company. In a nation of free people, should they be free to be racially discriminatory to their employees or customers? Later I tackled the issue again trying to show that perhaps laws would not be needed, because discrimination is unprofitable. Yesterday loyal reader (and commenter) Aaron Keck (aka Amike), posted an interesting link that was just too good to leave in the comments:

There is no such thing as "private" discrimination with respect to a public accommodation. Like any other claimed property right, it could not exist without government support.

Suppose an African American customer sits down at a "whites only" restaurant and asks for dinner. The owner tells him to leave. The customer refuses and stays put. What are the owner's options at that point? He can forcibly remove the customer himself, but, as Paul concedes, that could expose the restaurateur to criminal or civil liability. So he'll have to call the cops. When they arrive, he'll have to explain his whites-only policy and ask them to remove the unwanted black man because he's violating it. But they can only do that on the basis of some law, presumably trespassing. In other words, the business owner's discriminatory edict is meaningless unless some public authority enforces it.

Conversely, it is precisely because of this nexus between private discrimination and public enforcement that the larger community, through the political and judicial process, acquires a valid interest in legislating against discrimination. The public is entitled to say whether their tax money should pay for arresting black trespassers on whites-only property.

Here's the question I need answered, which set of laws (to allow discrimination or not) will result in the most good for America in the long run? Banning discrimination in the 1960's decreased the amount of discrimination. But did it also leave the door open for the federal government to intervene in other ways?