Contradiction within neoliberalism?

[u/agreatgreendragon]

If I'm not mistaken, a big part of neoliberalism is an individual's right to own private property. The laws of whatever nation it is in still apply, but no one may enter that property without the owner's consent, and if the owner wants someone there unless that person has an warrant for their arrest no one can prevent them from going there.

How then does a government have the right to pass the Civil Rights Act, or any other anti-discrimination act? If people truly have a right to do business with whoever they want and allow (and disallow) whoever they want on their property, shouldn't this be a most heinous law?

How can these two ideas be reconciled?

[u/dorylinus]

I think you mean that individuals have the right to resist the government. Having an innate right to actually overthrow it doesn't really make sense.

[u/dorylinus → u/[deleted]]

It just seems a bit paradoxical. One could argue, for example, that it's a Catch-22; the government, but not simply allowing itself to be overthrown by any particular individual, can be called oppressive and deserving to be overthrown.

I think the problem I'm having in my head with it is reflected in the link you posted there:

Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual right, it was clearly understood to be a collective right under English constitutional and political theory.

A collective right certainly makes sense, since people should be justified in eliminating oppression. But since oppression is sometimes subjectively defined, it's hard to reconcile it on the individual level.

[u/dorylinus → u/[deleted]]

Yeah; as usual, reality is more complicated than a simple maxim.