# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Ku Klux Klan?

## low preference guy

Yes or no?

Feel free to argue your response in the thread.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

No. No one should be forced to serve anyone.

----------


## roho76

I reserve the right. Period.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

great question.

----------


## JacobG18

oops i voted yes... meant to vote no

----------


## sevin

Of course no. I doubt there is going to be much debate on this one.

----------


## low preference guy

> Of course no. I doubt there is going to be much debate on this one.


Then there shouldn't be a debate on not supporting the Civil Rights Act. They are the same issue.

----------


## YumYum

> Then there shouldn't be a debate on not supporting the Civil Rights Act. They are the same issue.


How is that?

----------


## Eroberer

You can't legislate morality.

More importantly, you don't have the right to.

----------


## Bman

Of course they should.  Just ask Rachel.  As a matter of fact they can stand across the street on property they own and burn a cross before entering the establishment.  How do I know this?  Rachel Maddow.  That's how.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Of course they should.  Just ask Rachel.  As a matter of fact they can stand across the street on property they own and burn a cross before entering the establishment.  How do I know this?  Rachel Maddow.  That's how.


I loathe Rachel. She's a very ugly woman!

----------


## aspiringconstitutionalist

Of course not.

----------


## Stary Hickory

Nope, private property and this means they do not have to let people they do not want or do not like on their property.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

This is a great question to ask a liberal. Lol

----------


## Stary Hickory

> This is a great question to ask a liberal. Lol


Agreed, there would be some serious incosistency with their answers, I'd wager.

----------


## furface

Two different issues, race and behavior.

Proper question:

Should a black restaurant owner be required to serve someone who's white with no other reason for refusal than that the customer is white.

Answer: It should be left up to states to decide.  No federal jurisdiction for passing a law that forces the issue.  I personally would choose to live in a state where the answer is yes.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

NO force please, thank you. 



And that's what it is all about.

----------


## Working Poor

Would a KKK member go to a black restaurant to begin with?

----------


## ScoutsHonor

Sure, if it could cause some misery.

----------


## pcosmar

> Would a KKK member go to a black restaurant to begin with?


For the really good food,, I would guess.

----------


## Soca Taliban

> Two different issues, race and behavior.
> 
> Proper question:
> 
> Should a black restaurant owner be required to serve someone who's white with no other reason for refusal than that the customer is white.
> 
> Answer: It should be left up to states to decide.  No federal jurisdiction for passing a law that forces the issue.  I personally would choose to live in a state where the answer is yes.


How about, it should be left to the individual owner to decide whom he wants to serve. I never understand why people are willing to trade force the fed to force from the state.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

The question does not give enough details to give a correct answer.  If the restaurant is open to the general public and the KKK member isn't disrupting normal business, the owner can be forced by civil court to serve him.  I believe in private property rights, but I understand that when you open your property to the general public to conduct business, you enter a new legal realm.

If the restaurant is open only to member, or if the KKK shows up wearing a KKK hood, the owner has rights to boot him.  The term "forced to serve" leaves much to the imagination also.  Does it mean the KKK member filing a civil suit?  Or does it mean the KKK member using his own physical force to get a meal.

In a more real-life question:  If David Dukes walked up to a hotdog vendor on a New York City street, does the vendor have a right to refuse to serve him?

A black principal, in Ann Arbor Michigan, segregated white children so that they could not attend a field trip to see a black rocket scientist.  This is a different set of circumstances, but does bring up the same set of question concerning race.

----------


## furface

> I never understand why people are willing to trade force the fed to force from the state.


Then you simply don't get it.  State rights are a central issue to both Ron Paul and Rand Paul's politics.

The right to live in the type of community you wish is fundamental.  It's arguably more important than the much bantered "individual rights."

----------


## Aratus

assuming the more extreme factions of the k.k.k and their tendency
to hide behind masks and hoods, many black entrepreneurs may have
already served these same said individuals and not known that they
were, for the organization when being illegal is an instance of domestic
terrorism. i assume famous k.k.k members who are known by our press
corps like to publicity hound. the aspects of a confrontational situation
being a contrivance for someone with an agenda as well as the infamous
history behind the scenes has me being libertarian in an entreprenural way.

----------


## Soca Taliban

> Then you simply don't get it.  State rights are a central issue to both Ron Paul and Rand Paul's politics.
> 
> The right to live in the type of community you wish is fundamental.  It's arguably more important than the much bantered "individual rights."


I understand it completely. State's rights??? I think you mean State privileges. Trading a federal tyrant for State tyrants still goes against the cause of liberty.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

Meeh, I never been big on states rights. So its wrong for the Federal govt to be tyrannical but ok for State govt's?

----------


## furface

> Meeh, I never been big on states rights. So its wrong for the Federal govt to be tyrannical but ok for State govt's?


Move to another state.  That's the way it's supposed to work.  Quit trying to force your views on how government should work on other people.  It's a revolting form of aggression.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> A black principal, in Ann Arbor Michigan, segregated white children so that they could not attend a field trip to see a black rocket scientist.  This is a different set of circumstances, but does bring up the same set of question concerning race.


He also no longer has a job.

----------


## TC95

> No. No one should be forced to serve anyone.


Ditto.

----------


## Romulus

Good question from the OP. Any establishment reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Even if a black man running a hot dog stand on a public sidewalk, and a skin head comes up and says, give me a hot dog, you n$88$R. He has the right to refuse his service. PERIOD.

----------


## pcosmar

> Then you simply don't get it.  State rights are a central issue to both Ron Paul and Rand Paul's politics.
> 
> The right to live in the type of community you wish is fundamental.  It's arguably more important than the much bantered "individual rights."


I get it, but I dislike the "States Rights" term. States don't have rights. Individuals have rights.

I prefer *State Sovereignty*, And I believe that is a more accurate term.

----------


## CharlesTX

Brings a whole new meaning to No Shoes, No Shirt, No White Hoodies, No service.

----------


## furface

> I get it, but I dislike the "States Rights" term. States don't have rights. Individuals have rights.
> 
> I prefer *State Sovereignty*, And I believe that is a more accurate term.


That's fair enough.  You may be arguing semantics, though.  From a constitutional perspective, the key word is "power."




> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The issues are what these things boil down to:

1. Make abortion illegal or not - a state power

2. Make guns illegal or not - a state power

3. Make racial discrimination illegal in the private sector or not - a state power

4. Recognize same sex marriage - a state power

----------


## Imaginos

If I run a restaurant, I will not serve La Raza along with KKK.
Both of them are racists and both of them suck.
And it's my property, so suck it.

----------


## pcosmar

> That's fair enough.  You may be arguing semantics, though.  From a constitutional perspective, the key word is "power."
> 
> 
> 
> The issues are what these things boil down to:
> 
> 1. Make abortion illegal or not - a state power
> 
> 2. Make guns illegal or not - a state power
> ...


Not exactly. I believe that all states agreed to and are bound by the Constitution.
There are individual protections included that the states agreed to. The 2nd amendment for example. Militia organization could vary from state to state, but the Right to bear arms is untouchable.

The only real issues of difference would be those things not specifically enumerated in the Bill of rights. Those things that are left to the states or the people. (10 amendment)

----------


## furface

> Not exactly. I believe that all states agreed to and are bound by the Constitution.
> There are individual protections included that the states agreed to. The 2nd amendment for example. Militia organization could vary from state to state, but the Right to bear arms is untouchable.
> 
> The only real issues of difference would be those things not specifically enumerated in the Bill of rights. Those things that are left to the states or the people. (10 amendment)


The only difference between you, neocons, and the biggest government solution for every problem liberal is the different ways you each choose to violently force your ideas onto other people.

----------


## puppetmaster

> The only difference between you, neocons, and the biggest government solution for every problem liberal is the different ways you each choose to violently force your ideas onto other people.


sorry your way of base here......

----------


## torchbearer

> How is that?


it forces a white owner to serve black panthers, or they are discriminating and will be sued/and or shut down by the government.

apparently the civil rights act is a one way street.

----------


## furface

> sorry your way of base here......


You want to force other people to accept guns in their societies.  You have basically the same philosophy as neocons who get worked up into a tizzy about how people in the Middle East live their lives.

If we ever want to mainstream libertarianism, we're going to have to get rid of this type of hypocrisy.

You can't have it both ways.  Roe V Wade is wrong.  DC V Heller is wrong.  They're both wrong, and to say that one is right and the other is wrong is just moving around pieces in the same screwed up puzzle.

----------


## Theocrat

Should Blacks be allowed to own restaurants? If you see the inherent problem with that question, then the problem with the thread question should now be apparent.

----------


## .Tom

I was flipping channels late last night and ended up on MSNBC and Rand was being interviewed by Rachel. She was such a bitch trying to call him a racist. I wanted to shoot my television and make her shut the $#@! up.

She's a giant hypocrite too because I guarantee if the question was should a black owner be forced to served the KKK she would have made an excuse.

----------


## klamath

I miss read the poll and voted yes. subtract 1 from the yes votes.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

As a young black man, who was fortunate enough to grow up in a time where I didn’t have to check for a sign that says "No Colored Allowed" the civil rights act debate has left me conflicted at times. How can I.. a black man be opposed to something that I have directly benefited from? But what it comes down to is, you do not want government forcing you into associations, period. That decision set a major precedent for government to over step their boundaries and interfere and infringe on the individual rights of American citizens/businesses. It took me a while to come to this conclusion, because growing up, my mother would tell me stories how she would have to walk miles to a store that served blacks when there was a store just right around the corner from her house, but refused to take black people's green money. She told me how mad she would be when her mother asked her to go to the store for milk, sometimes she would get her friend (who was mulatto and very light skinned) to go to the store for her...but it did not always work. I could not imagine living in a society so $#@!ing backwards and retarded. But we have to realize this was a social ill that not only haunted (and still haunts) nations and cultures all across the world. Skin color prejudice is still prevalent today not only in America, but in every country, even among black and Latin Americans. It's a social ill and social ills cannot be solved by the barrel of a gun (i.e. the government), but through education and enlightenment. This is what should be celebrated from the civil rights era, it was a true moment of change, when black and white faces came together and said no more, we will boycott, we will march, and we will unify against a common enemy called Racism. Over the years, the government has stolen that success from the movement as if it was the government that turned the tide of racism of prejudice. No it was not the government. What should be mentioned is the hundreds if thousands of businesses who took down their signs voluntarily. Who's to say we would still be a segregated nation today if there was no Civil Right Act, specifically the provision prohibiting businesses that server the public to no discriminate based on race, gender, or religion. The civil rights movement would have kept on fighting, people would have still become much more enlightened, and the forces of the market would have reigned. Those businesses that chose to turn away blacks would have eventually failed, and the ones that didn’t would have prospered. Maybe, just maybe, we would be a little less racially obsessed today. Now as far as government buildings, schools and services, housing,  no they should not be segregated. The government could have taken a much less forceful option and just promoted equality and non-discrimination, instead of forcing association on to private individuals. And Maybe, blacks would be better off then we are today, maybe we would have focused on building stronger communities instead of integrating ,this is what Malcolm X preached time and time again. Maybe we would have focused more on building more of our own stores, own neighborhoods, own malls, own manufacturing base.. Who knows?

----------


## constituent

> The only difference between you, neocons, and the biggest government solution for every problem liberal is the different ways you each choose to violently force your ideas onto other people.


uhhh...




> You want to force other people to accept guns in their societies.


lol.

----------


## fgd

> As a young black man, who was fortunate enough to grow up in a time where I didn't have to check a for a sign that says "No Colored Allowed" the civil right's act debate has left me conflicted at times. How can I a black man be opposed to something I have directly benefited from? But what it comes down to it, you do not want government forcing you into associations, period. That decision set a major precedent for government to over step their boundaries and interfere and infringe on the individual rights of American citizens. It took me a while to come to this conclusion, because growing up, my mother would tell me stories how she would have to walk miles to a store that served blacks when there was a store just right around the corner from her house, but refused to take black people's green money. She told me how mad she would be when her mother asked her to go to the store for milk, sometimes she would get her friend (who was mulatto and very light skinned) to go to the store for her...but it did not always work. I could not imagine living in a society so $#@!ing backwards and retarded. But we have to realize this was a social ill that not only haunted (and still haunts) nations and cultures all across the world. Skin color prejudice is still prevalent today not only in America, but in every country, even among black and Latin Americans. It's a social ill and social ills can not be solved by the barrel of a gun (i.e. the government), but through education and enlightenment. This is what should be celebrated from the civil rights era, it was a true moment of change, when black and white faces came together and said no more, we will boycott, we will march, and we will unify against a common enemy called Racism. Over the years, the government has stolen that success from the movement as if it was the government that turned the tide of racism of prejudice. No it was not the government. What should be mentioned is the hundreds if thousands of businesses who took down their signs voluntarily. Who's to say we would still be a segregated nation today if there was no Civil Right Act, specifically the provision prohibiting businesses that server the public to no discriminate based on race, gender, or religion. The civil rights movement would have kept on fighting, people would have still become much more enlightened, and the forces of the market would have reigned. Those businesses that chose to turn away blacks would have eventually failed, and the ones that didn't would have prospered. Maybe, just maybe, we would be a little less racially obsessed today. Now as far as government buildings, schools and services, housing,  no they should not be segregated. The government could have taken a much less forceful option and just promoted equality and non-discrimination, instead of forcing association on to private individuals. And Maybe, blacks would be better off then we are today, maybe we would have focused on building stronger communities instead of integrating ,this is what Malcolm X preached time and time again. Maybe we would have focused more on building more of our own stores, own neighborhoods, own malls, own manufacturing base.. Who knows?


God $#@!ing damn, that was an epic post.  

About halfway through I started to envision someone speaking those words with MLK's or X's intonation and cadence...

"The civil rights movement...WOULD have kept on fighting... people WOULD have still become much more enlightened...and the FORCES OF THE MARKET would have reigned... Those businesses that CHOSE to turn away blacks would have eventually failed...and the ones that didn't would have PROSEPERED...

It is a SOCIAL ill and SOCIAL ills CAN NOT BE SOLVED by the barrel of a gun, but through EDUCATION AND ENLIGHTENMENT (pounds podium). This is what should be celebrated from the civil rights era, it was a true moment of CHANGE, when black and white faces CAME TOGETHER and said NO MORE, we will boycott, we will march, and we will UNIFY against a common enemy called RACISM... Over the years, the government has STOLEN that success from the movement as if it was the GOVERNMENT that turned the tide of racism of prejudice."

Please enter politics.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

Well, as I tried explaining to the dipsticks at HuffingtonPost, the main reason for the Civil Rights Movement was the dismantling of the Jim Crow Laws and their northern counterparts. Just as ass-backwards as it is for the Civil Rights Act to say that private property owners cannot discriminate, it was equally anti-private property for the Jim Crow laws to demand segregation. In both instances, it was government force that creates the problem.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You want to force other people to accept guns in their societies.  You have basically the same philosophy as neocons who get worked up into a tizzy about how people in the Middle East live their lives.
> 
> If we ever want to mainstream libertarianism, we're going to have to get rid of this type of hypocrisy.


Your basic point is this: that forcing others to not aggress against others is in itself a form of aggression.  To make the point even more stark: for me, personally, to force you, personally, to not burn my house (or melt down my guns, or whatever) would be to commit an act of aggression against you.  Now tell me, does that point make sense?  Is preventing aggression really aggressive, or is that the very situation for which they invented the word _defensive_?

On "states' rights" in particular: The reason state independence is better than centralist conglomeration is that the states are smaller polities than the USA as a whole.  Exit is thus easier.  Power is decentralized.  Federalism is really nothing more than an attempt at decentralization.  Ultimately, the question of whether a confederation's federalism is genuine or not boils down to the question of secession.  Can a state secede?  If not, than the state has no rights, no sovereignty, no independence.  The state is merely a subservient precinct of the national government.

Would you agree with the above paragraph, furface?

This question of secession is so vital to the question of politics.  Libertarianism is simply federalism/"states' rights" taken to its logical conclusion.  If my state can secede from D.C., my county should be able to secede from the state.  If my neighborhood doesn't want to have to labor under the oppression of the city zoning board, we should be able to secede.  If, later on, even the neighborhood governing system (if any) is giving me grief, I should be able to secede from them.  

I think you seriously misunderstand pcosmar, puppetmaster, and libertarians in general if you think we wish to force anyone to do anything!  Libertarianism is defined by the extreme, uncompromising wish to absolutely not force anyone to do anything (except respect the property of others).  You think we want to force everyone to live in a society where there's a pistol on every hip and a rifle in every rear-view?  Absolutely not!  We completely, completely respect your right to set up a society where all guns are banned, or where prostitution is banned, or even where alcohol is banned!  Whatever restrictions you can dream up, they're fine, as long as the right to exit is respected.  It's all about the right to secession, which is the same thing as self-determination, which is the right to decide how and by whom you want to be governed (if at all).

Under libertarianism, a wide profusion of different systems and societies could flourish.  As they used to say: "Let a thousand flowers bloom".  The Amish, Hutterites, New Agers, religious orders of every sort, White Separatists, Black Separatists, technophiles, technophobes, gated cities with ubiquitous surveillance cameras, frontier towns where everyone does carry a pistol, open bazaars in a unending state of pandemonium where anything goes.   Everyone would have their communities, left unharassed to follow their conscience.  Some communities would be geographically-based, kind of like current governments (except for these would be legitimate), others would be distributed.  If you want to set up a city or even a vast principality based on Victorian values where profanity and immodest dress is outlawed, no commerce can be conducted on Sunday, and you are the prince, have at it: just buy the land and build your castle.  There is nothing unlibertarian about that, as long as you are the legitimate property owner of your royal domain and you have the unanimous consent of all your subjects, who can leave if they wish.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> God $#@!ing damn, that was an epic post.  
> 
> About halfway through I started to envision someone speaking those words with MLK's or X's intonation and cadence...
> 
> "The civil rights movement...WOULD have kept on fighting... people WOULD have still become much more enlightened...and the FORCES OF THE MARKET would have reigned... Those businesses that CHOSE to turn away blacks would have eventually failed...and the ones that didn't would have PROSEPERED...
> 
> It is a SOCIAL ill and SOCIAL ills CAN NOT BE SOLVED by the barrel of a gun, but through EDUCATION AND ENLIGHTENMENT (pounds podium). This is what should be celebrated from the civil rights era, it was a true moment of CHANGE, when black and white faces CAME TOGETHER and said NO MORE, we will boycott, we will march, and we will UNIFY against a common enemy called RACISM... Over the years, the government has STOLEN that success from the movement as if it was the GOVERNMENT that turned the tide of racism of prejudice."
> 
> Please enter politics.


hahaha, thanks man.

----------


## pcosmar

> You want to force other people to accept guns in their societies.  You have basically the same philosophy as neocons who get worked up into a tizzy about how people in the Middle East live their lives.
> 
> If we ever want to mainstream libertarianism, we're going to have to get rid of this type of hypocrisy.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  Roe V Wade is wrong.  DC V Heller is wrong.  They're both wrong, and to say that one is right and the other is wrong is just moving around pieces in the same screwed up puzzle.


No. Roe v  Wade and Heller v DC are entirely different. 
Roe v wade allows the killing of the unborn.= A Personal Choice.
Heller v DC concerns the Right to self Defense and the Right to Bear Arms.= A fundamental RIGHT.

by your thinking, Freedom of Speech is not an inalienable right as put forth by the Constitution.
The right  against self incrimination or jury trial, could be removed by state laws.

Every state ratified the Constitution when it was admitted to the republic. That is the LAW of the land.

----------


## speciallyblend

good luck winning this argument!

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> The right  against self incrimination or jury trial, could be removed by state laws.


Indeedy. If State's Rights trump Individual Rights, then there is no point to being called a 'free society'. Communities do not have rights (they're just smaller collectives than States) and its repugnant to think they can, by simple majority, impose against fundamental rights of individuals. WE have unlimited rights (9th & 10th Amendments), while States have some Sovereignty and the Feds are supposed to have even less. Individuals are supreme.

----------


## furface

> No. Roe v  Wade and Heller v DC are entirely different.


Right.  It's tremendously depressing to hear "libertarians" say things like this.  The discussion you're having with statists is what rules and ideas you each want to force on other people, not whether or not forcing your ideas on other people is legitimate in the first place or not.  You don't disagree with statists in principle, you just have different ideas about how each of you thinks governments should be able to $#@! with people and the societies they create.  People forming communities they want to live in is a fundamental right.  If you don't like it, go the $#@! somewhere else and don't force me to live in your sick view of reality.

Thankfully there are deeper thinkers in this movement, including Ron Paul and his son who are major advocates for state rights.

This is why 90% of society thinks that libertarians are hypocritical nut cases.  They see people talking like this.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> People forming communities they want to live in is a fundamental right.  If you don't like it, go the $#@! somewhere else and don't force me to live in your sick view of reality.


What if I was here first? Why should I have to move to accommodate you? Why can't you let me live how I wish to live and I'll let you live as you wish to live?

----------


## YumYum

> Maybe we would have focused more on building more of our own stores, own neighborhoods, own malls, own manufacturing base.. Who knows?


After the Civil Rights Act was passed the blacks were more focused on burning down and looting their own neighborhoods, malls and businesses. Remember the 60's riots? Why would they celebrate their newly enforced freedoms by rioting?

----------


## Theocrat

> What if I was here first? Why should I have to move to accommodate you? *Why can't you let me live how I wish to live and I'll let you live as you wish to live?*


[Emphasis mine]

You don't really believe that, Brooklyn. Here's why I say that. If you allowed someone to live as they wish, but their only way of life was to inflict pain upon people they didn't like (a "sado-terrorist," for lack of a better term), you would have a problem with that because they would not be living by the "Non-Aggression Principle" as you would want them to. And that's my point. You'll let people live as they wish *only if* they agree to and live by the principles you agree with, namely, by some "non-initiation of force" ethic.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> After the Civil Rights Act was passed the blacks were more focused on burning down and looting their own neighborhoods, malls and businesses. Remember the 60's riots? Why would they celebrate their newly enforced freedoms by rioting?


Right, because all blacks were rioting

----------


## furface

> What if I was here first? Why should I have to move to accommodate you? Why can't you let me live how I wish to live and I'll let you live as you wish to live?


Very unlikely to happen in the case of gun possession, unless you live in a place where there a lot of people who want to ban guns.   Why would you want to live in a place where everybody wants to ban guns?  I think that gun nuts get a kick out of watching other people submit to their views.  That's what they're after, forcing other people to accept their politics.  It's not enough to just live in a place with people who are like minded with them.  It's all about controlling other people.

The Supreme Court loves the constitutionally mangled concept of personal gun possession.  They make out like they're protecting individual rights when what they've done is actually quash community militia rights.  Only an idiot would pull a personal right to bear arms out of the 2nd Amendment wording.  You've traded the important right of militias for the right of a beer drinking idiot wearing an NRA shirt to watch NASCAR and wax his gun when he wants to.

----------


## YumYum

> Right, because all blacks were rioting


No, not all, but a significant number were. Why would they riot when they should have been celebrating? Why didn't they build new businesses in their neighborhoods instead of burning them down? Those riots set the blacks back thirty years.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No. Roe v  Wade and Heller v DC are entirely different. 
> Roe v wade allows the killing of the unborn.= A Personal Choice.
> Heller v DC concerns the Right to self Defense and the Right to Bear Arms.= A fundamental RIGHT


 Actually, I agree with furface on this.  The Constitution restricts the actions of the government for the united States, not the governments of the States.  The second amendment does indeed say, unqualified, "shall not be infringed", but I think it must be taken to say implicitly "shall not be infringed by the government for the united States", for the constitution is a charter for that organization alone, not for any other.




> by your thinking, Freedom of Speech is not an inalienable right as put forth by the Constitution.


 Well right, precisely -- it's not!  The amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech".  Congress.  Not the states.  Nothing about the states.  Just a clear, iron-clad limitation on what laws could be made by Congress.

Establishment of religion is even more interesting.  Read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". No law respecting.  In other words, no law having anything to do with it, one way or the other.  Congress could not prohibit the states from establishing an official religion, nor could it require them to do so.  This was a position of neutrality, accommodating e.g. both Massachusetts which (little known fact!) did in fact have a state-established church until 1833 and Rhode Island which had a freedom-of-religion policy.




> The right against self incrimination or jury trial, could be removed by state laws.


 Yes it could.  That would be OK.  A confederation where the central government was actually bound by the Constitution and the states were free to take away your jury trial, force you to pay tithes to the Puritan church, and ban abortion, would be a far superior system to the top-down centralized one we have today.  Remember: a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to takeaway everything you love.  A D.C. that can force states to legalize porn is a D.C. that can force states to _not_ legalize drugs.

----------


## silentshout

Ok well i did ask a friend who is a Dem still and apparently you can discriminate against them because they are not a protected class...is this true? not that i agree with the kkk..yuck..but honestly if the law applies to some then why not all? So if it's not applied across the board then i don't get it.

----------


## furface

> Actually, I agree with furface on this.


Thank you.  I think I'll leave this conversation before I get more people to hate me, though.  I know I come off a bit strong.   The thing I want to convey, and am probably not doing it so well, is that people need to consider what widely different political factions think about this movement.  I personally try to think in terms of what set of ideas can I embrace that I can sell to people from a wide range of political views.  You can't do that if you force every single issue you personally hold onto other people in other places that have virtually nothing to do with you.

I apologize if I offended anybody.

----------


## TruthisTreason

I'd love to here Rachael Maddow's answer....

----------


## silentshout

> If I run a restaurant, I will not serve La Raza along with KKK.
> Both of them are racists and both of them suck.
> And it's my property, so suck it.


I agree. Honestly i think this whole thing is ridiculous...why was this question even asked to him? He is not running to repeal the civil rights act.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> but honestly if the law applies to some then why not all? So if it's not applied across the board then i don't get it.


 Welcome to the world of fiat legislation.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Thank you.


 Hey, I thank you just as much for agreeing with _me_! 




> I think I'll leave this conversation before I get more people to hate me, though.


 Ahh man, don't do that!  I wanted a reply to my post explaining why libertarianism isn't about forcing anything on anyone, to see if I explained it at all well and if you're on board now.

----------


## Akus

> Yes or no?
> 
> Feel free to argue your response in the thread.


What if neither yes or no are appropriate answers since no Klansman would ever eat at a black owned restaurant?

----------


## pcosmar

> Very unlikely to happen in the case of gun possession, unless you live in a place where there a lot of people who want to ban guns.   Why would you want to live in a place where everybody wants to ban guns?  I think that gun nuts get a kick out of watching other people submit to their views.  That's what they're after, forcing other people to accept their politics.  It's not enough to just live in a place with people who are like minded with them.  It's all about controlling other people.
> 
> The Supreme Court loves the constitutionally mangled concept of personal gun possession.  They make out like they're protecting individual rights when what they've done is actually quash community militia rights.  Only an idiot would pull a personal right to bear arms out of the 2nd Amendment wording.  You've traded the important right of militias for the right of a beer drinking idiot wearing an NRA shirt to watch NASCAR and wax his gun when he wants to.


Sorry, But you are quite wrong.  Insultingly so.
You disagree with those that founded this country, You disagree with Common Law, And with the stated positions of Ron Paul.

But let me back that up.




> "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)





> Patrick Henry,   
> The great object is, that every man be armed.





> Patrick Henry,   
> Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?





> "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)





> Cockrum v. State,   
> The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.


And this is just a small sampling. There is much more on the subject, as it was (and is) a pivotal Right.

----------


## furface

> Remember: a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to takeaway everything you love. A D.C. that can force states to legalize porn is a D.C. that can force states to not  legalize drugs.


Excellent point.  Everybody seems to be arguing about Nanny's particular policies.  The point is whether or not Nanny should exist in the first place.





> Sorry, But you are quite wrong. Insultingly so.


Sorry to say that I'm not heart broken by this statement.  Try not to be insulted.  The arena of ideas can be quite volatile.




> You disagree with Common Law, And with the stated positions of Ron Paul.


You need to check Ron Paul's views on state rights and the 2nd Amendment a little closer.  But anyway, when people start farting on about "common law" and fantastically obscure legal theories, I know it's really time for me to leave.

----------


## speciallyblend

> I agree. Honestly i think this whole thing is ridiculous...why was this question even asked to him? He is not running to repeal the civil rights act.


because rand paul has brought it up before in past interviews!!  rand blew the interview bottom line!!  everyone can be angry at rachel maddow all you want but the bottom line is rand paul blew the interview!!

----------


## low preference guy

> What if neither yes or no are appropriate answers since no Klansman would ever eat at a black owned restaurant?


Maybe he doesn't know the owner and the employees are white.

----------


## fatjohn

HAHAHAHAHA!!! 

Thx for this one. Imagine Rand asking this question to whatshername. Nice smackdown. Made me smile

----------


## catdd

I remember when the black caucus tried to force the Dallas Cowboys to hire a black coach after Jimmy Johnson left.
That's what happens.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> because rand paul has brought it up before in past interviews!!


I believe a left-wing newspaper brought it up in a prior interview. Rand never brought it up.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> No, not all, but a significant number were. Why would they riot when they should have been celebrating? Why didn't they build new businesses in their neighborhoods instead of burning them down? Those riots set the blacks back thirty years.


Uhh...the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964........the race riots happened in 68 in response to Dr. King's assassination, high unemployment, police brutality, etc. Was is justified? Hell no, I dont think destroying people's property is ever justified, honestly I just dont understand rioting, it does no help to a cause and it makes no sense. I dont understand when the LA Lakers win the championship, mother $#@!ers go to flipping cars, looting, and burning down buildings....I dont understand rioting period...but it will definitely happen when you have a large group of people that feel oppressed. I agree those riots set blacks back, look at Detroit, there are still remnants of the 68'  riots. 

Black unemployment was like 50% during that time, then you had Vietnam and the draft....$#@! was crazy.

----------


## Reason

> Yes or no?
> 
> Feel free to argue your response in the thread.


This thread/poll/analogy is pure win.

Thank You.

----------


## SWATH

Should Jessie Jackson be forced to allow David Duke into his home if he doesn't want him there?  Should Rachel Maddow be forced to allow Rick Santorum into her home if she doesn't want him there?

----------


## RCA

Before the Civil Rights Act, weren't businesses PREVENTED from serving blacks?

----------


## YumYum

> Uhh...the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964........the race riots happened in 68 in response to Dr. King's assassination, high unemployment, police brutality, etc. Was is justified? Hell no, I dont think destroying people's property is ever justified, honestly I just dont understand rioting, it does no help to a cause and it makes no sense. I dont understand when the LA Lakers win the championship, mother $#@!ers go to flipping cars, looting, and burning down buildings....I dont understand rioting period...but it will definitely happen when you have a large group of people that feel oppressed. I agree those riots set blacks back, look at Detroit, there are still remnants of the 68'  riots. 
> 
> Black unemployment was like 50% during that time, then you had Vietnam and the draft....$#@! was crazy.


The riots ended by 1968. They started with the Harlem Riot of 1964, just as Civil Rights was being passed. Then there was the Watts Riot of 1965, not to mention Newark, New Jersey; Rochester, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago and do not forget the Detroit Riot of 1967. This was all before King's assassination. Also, what is confusing, is that blacks were committing crimes on other blacks, and yet they had the Federal government on their side with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LBJ gave them welfare and food stamps and they still rioted. The point is, Ron Paul is correct: the Civil Rights Act didn't bring harmony as it claimed it would, but brought on riots. I wish someone who is black would explain the logic behind tearing up your own neighborhood?

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> The riots ended by 1968. They started with the Harlem Riot of 1964, just as Civil Rights was being passed. Then there was the Watts Riot of 1965, not to mention Newark, New Jersey; Rochester, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago and do not forget the Detroit Riot of 1967. This was all before King's assassination. Also, what is confusing, is that blacks were committing crimes on other blacks, and yet they had the Federal government on their side with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LBJ gave them welfare and food stamps and they still rioted. The point is, Ron Paul is correct: the Civil Rights Act didn't bring harmony as it claimed it would, but brought on riots. I wish someone who is black would explain the logic behind tearing up your own neighborhood?


When you find them let me know because I never understood it myself. 

It's like the LA riots in the 90's.......what was the purpose of that?? Some cops got away with beating a man down..what else is new? So lets tear down our own neighborhood and destroy it's economy? Yes, that makes tons of sense. Could be Collective effervescence.......I dont know

----------


## pcosmar

> I wish someone who is black would explain the logic behind tearing up your own neighborhood?


I'm not black, but I am colorblind.
There is no logic to mob mentality. It is unleashed raw emotion, usually anger. and often frustration.
Logic is not in the equation.

----------


## BuddyRey

Ten people voted "Yes"?!

WTF?!

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Ten people voted "Yes"?!
> 
> WTF?!


7% of the people on here are trolls

----------


## yokna7

This is funny. If Rand would have asked her this the other night, she would have been cornered and responded "yes" to this question. Which to my horror, is probably the typical mainstream response to this. Rand could have rebutted "so you would FORCE this?" and the point would be demonstrated.

----------


## parocks

> Nope, private property and this means they do not have to let people they do not want or do not like on their property.


Instead of saying blacks serving the Klan, what about men wearing dresses using womens rooms?

This men wearing dresses using womens rooms is a real issue, it's taking place right now, the people are against it, and democrat politicians are for it.

----------


## sirgonzo420

> No. No one should be forced to serve anyone.


I'm against slavery too!

----------


## parocks

> Ok well i did ask a friend who is a Dem still and apparently you can discriminate against them because they are not a protected class...is this true? not that i agree with the kkk..yuck..but honestly if the law applies to some then why not all? So if it's not applied across the board then i don't get it.


Since we're talking about the 64 act, back in the day, blacks (and I'd add indians too) were really really really harmed by discrimination.  So the act was passed.  The key thing is that congress knew about private property rights and tried to balance those rights with the remediation of a really really really bad harm.

Basically the 64 version had some idea in there somewhere that the group being discriminated against had to have been harmed really really really bad by discrimination.

What you're saying is why not take away private property rights for no reason at all.

----------


## parocks

> Ten people voted "Yes"?!
> 
> WTF?!


Well, under current law, the answer would be yes.  So, people answering yes would be supporting the current law.  10 people taking that position is not hard to understand.

----------


## bchavez

> Actually, it depends in what state you live in. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 only protects race, color, religion, or national origin (disability was added by the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990). So, under federal law, a black restaurant owner could bar a KKK member, because membership in a racist organization (like the KKK or the Republican﻿ Party) is not a protected class. Some states like California impose tougher restrictions.


message i got from a youtube user.

----------


## low preference guy

> Ten people voted "Yes"?!
> 
> WTF?!


At least two said they voted yes accidentally. Look at previous posts.

Also, I'm really proud to have started this thread.

And I am REALLY proud of Rand Paul for making the whole country debate the issue before stating his position. For those who are down, wait a few months and see all the long term consequences. One of them will be that libertarianism will sound a lot more reasonable.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> Ten people voted "Yes"?!
> 
> WTF?!


I voted yes, but explained that the question was too vague.  The term force needs to be explained better.  It does not say if the KKK member is distrupting business.

A business owner that opens his property to the public does not have the authority to strip anyone of their constitutional right of liberty.  The federal government has a responsibility to protect "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" of its citizens.

Does a man have liberty if he cannot go where the public is welcomed?

The business owner has property rights too.  If a patron is distrupting business, he can remove him.  He can also close the business to the public by requiring memberships or reservation for admission.  Once a business owner invites the public, he maintains right property rights.  None of those property rights give him the authority to violate the constitutional right of liberty of anyone.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> I voted yes, but explained that the question was too vague.  The term force needs to be explained better.  It does not say if the KKK member is distrupting business.
> 
> A business owner that opens his property to the public does not have the authority to strip anyone of their constitutional right of liberty.  The federal government has a responsibility to protect "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" of its citizens.
> 
> Does a man have liberty if he cannot go the public is welcomed?
> 
> The business owner has property rights too.  If a patron is distrupting business, he can remove him.  He can also close the business to the public by requiring memberships or reservation for admission.  Once a business owner invites the public, he maintains right property rights.  None of those property rights give him the authority to violate the constitutional right of liberty of anyone.


I'm not a fan of the KKK, but they are have constitutional rights also.

----------


## ronpaulraps

No I would think a klansmen is smart enough not to step foot near a black restuarant.

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm not a fan of the KKK, but they are have constitutional rights also.


there are no consitutional rights, only individual rights.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> there are no consitutional rights, only individual rights.


Whose individual rights are more important?  The resturant owner's or the KKK member's?  Or do they have equal individual rights?

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Whose individual rights are more important?  The resturant owner's or the KKK member's?  Or do they have equal individual rights?


Equal.

----------


## torchbearer

> Whose individual rights are more important?  The resturant owner's or the KKK member's?  Or do they have equal individual rights?


we all have equal rights.
but when in question of who has the right, you should ask who owns the property.

It is derived from the FIRST principle of self-ownership.

The person who owns a business decides who he serves.
The owner of a home decides who he allows inside.
and so forth.

is this still not clear for you?

----------


## pcosmar

I find nothing wrong with this concept.
There are companies and businesses that have earned my business and those that have earned my disgust. 
I won't spend my money where I am not welcome.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> we all have equal rights.
> but when in question of who has the right, you should ask who owns the property.
> 
> It is derived from the FIRST principle of self-ownership.
> 
> The person who owns a business decides who he serves.
> The owner of a home decides who he allows inside.
> and so forth.
> 
> is this still not clear for you?


Very clear.  All have the right to discriminate who can walk into their business or home.  

Where we depart in agreement is that when a business owner decides to open his business to the public.  When you invite the public, you agree to let free people on your property and have no rights to limit their liberty as long as they do not distrupt your business.  Most business are not open to the public and do very well.  Resturant owners that want to discriminate only need to have a members only policy.  I'll support them keeping the KKK out.  When a business states they are open to the public they assume different responsibilities.

Individual rights are not absolute for individual or business owners.

----------


## torchbearer

> Very clear.  All have the right to discriminate who can walk into their business or home.  
> 
> Where we depart in agreement is that when a business owner decides to open his business to the public.  When you invite the public, you agree to let free people on your property and have no rights to limit their liberty as long as they do not distrupt your business.  Most business are not open to the public and do very well.  Resturant owners that want to discriminate only need to have a members only policy.  I'll support them keeping the KKK out.  When a business states they are open to the public they assume different responsibilities.
> 
> Individual rights are not absolute for individual or business owners.


all business are open to the public.
hell, I fix computers, i'm open to the public.
Do you own my business now?

----------


## torchbearer

let me add this before i leave-
If the government derives it power from the people
and If you don't have the right as an individual to tell me who I service.
where then, does the government get that power?

it has become a power unto itself and is immoral. it is a tyranny.
fighting injustice with tyanny only gives you more injustice and tyranny.

don't be immoral.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Whose individual rights are more important?  The resturant owner's or the KKK member's?  Or do they have equal individual rights?


Everyone has equal rights. If you own property, you can decide who can use that property. Others can decide to boycott and picket you.

I can't dictate to you who you must allow on your property, because it's your property, not mine.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Very clear.  All have the right to discriminate who can walk into their business or home.  
> 
> Where we depart in agreement is that when a business owner decides to open his business to the public.  When you invite the public, you agree to let free people on your property and have no rights to limit their liberty as long as they do not distrupt your business.  Most business are not open to the public and do very well.  Resturant owners that want to discriminate only need to have a members only policy.  I'll support them keeping the KKK out.  When a business states they are open to the public they assume different responsibilities.
> 
> Individual rights are not absolute for individual or business owners.


Sorry, if I own property, I have a right to allow or disallow anyone on it I choose. That can include everyone in the public but one person, if I want. You don't have a right to go around with a gun forcing people to run their business the way you want them to, and you don't magically gain that right with popular approval.

Again, I own my property, not you. You do not have the "liberty" to use someone else's property against their will. That's called theft and/or trespass.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> all business are open to the public.
> hell, I fix computers, i'm open to the public.
> Do you own my business now?


Most business don't have public access or accomodations and when they do, it is limited.  If your computer business is open to the public, it's your choice.  Chemical factories, ammo manufactors, defense contractors are examples of business that have no or very limited public accomodations.  Public accomodation are most common in retail and resturants, but even these can become membership based.


Noboby own your business but you.

----------


## Theocrat

Wow. Rachel Maddow would be so shocked to see our poll results right now that her penis would fall off.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> Sorry, if I own property, I have a right to allow or disallow anyone on it I choose. That can include everyone in the public but one person, if I want. You don't have a right to go around with a gun forcing people to run their business the way you want them to, and you don't magically gain that right with popular approval.
> 
> Again, I own my property, not you. You do not have the "liberty" to use someone else's property against their will. That's called theft and/or trespass.


I am in complete agreement with this.

----------


## Theocrat

> Everyone has equal rights. If you own property, you can decide who can use that property. Others can decide to boycott and picket you.
> 
> I can't dictate to you who you must allow on your property, because it's your property, not mine.


"But...but...I have a right to what your service provides me!" shouts the desperate socialist. "You can't deny me my rights! That's prejudice! MOM!" And the angry socialist storms down the beltway to tell Nanny on you.

----------


## tremendoustie

> I am in complete agreement with this.


I don't understand then, because it seems like you're suggesting otherwise (admittedly I have not read the whole thread).

Let me be clear. The solution to racist discrimination is not violence by the government, or any other violence. It is the community standing together, and refusing to tolerate it.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I don't understand then, because it seems like you're suggesting otherwise (admittedly I have not read the whole thread).
> 
> Let me be clear. The solution to racist discrimination is not violence by the government, or any other violence. It is the community standing together, and refusing to tolerate it.


Add a "but if they dont" on the end. That's you, right?

----------


## idirtify

> Very clear.  All have the right to discriminate who can walk into their business or home.  
> 
> Where we depart in agreement is that when a business owner decides to open his business to the public.  When you invite the public, you agree to let free people on your property and have no rights to limit their liberty as long as they do not distrupt your business.  Most business are not open to the public and do very well.  Resturant owners that want to discriminate only need to have a members only policy.  I'll support them keeping the KKK out.  When a business states they are open to the public they assume different responsibilities.
> 
> Individual rights are not absolute for individual or business owners.


Such businesses often set special rules for entry. Bars often hire doormen to select who can and can not enter. 

Regarding clubs, you mean they can legally discriminate against letting blacks join?

----------


## tremendoustie

> Add a "but if they dont" on the end. That's you, right?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Wow. Rachel Maddow would be so shocked to see our poll results right now that her penis would fall off.


Ok Theo, you cracked me up.  Chalk it up as a first, but I must insist all penis jokes include the *S*mall *P*enis *L*obby *C*enter.

----------


## ctiger2

> No. No one should be forced to serve anyone.


^This. We wouldn't want the Govt. telling us we can't serve someone as well.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Let me be clear. The solution to racist discrimination is not violence by the government, or any other violence. It is the community standing together, and refusing to tolerate it.


Let me add a qualifier (since I agree with you wholeheartedly), that when its said 'the community', at least I mean 'individuals' not just 'local government'. I see no difference between tyranny of the majority at the local level than I do of tyranny of the majority at the State or Federal level. Woolworths ending of the segregated lunch counters was done through Free Market means, not government coercion.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Let me add a qualifier (since I agree with you wholeheartedly), that when its said 'the community', at least I mean 'individuals' not just 'local government'. I see no difference between tyranny of the majority at the local level than I do of tyranny of the majority at the State or Federal level. Woolworths ending of the segregated lunch counters was done through Free Market means, not government coercion.


Yep.

----------


## REDNECK WOMAN

Yes I do. Should a White restaurant serve the Black Panther's? if you don't you will be called racist and be sued!!!!!

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> Yes I do. If the Black panthers came in should you sever them?


sever what?

----------


## not.your.average.joe

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by JosephTheLibertarian  
> No. No one should be forced to serve anyone. 
> 
> ^This. We wouldn't want the Govt. telling us we can't serve someone as well.


FYI,
From what i have been hearing from the left... just informing you on what i have heard...

1. its not about being forced to serve someone, but about someone being denied service based on the color of their skin. and that no one should be denied service based on skin color.
2. they keep using the example of a hospital, or town doctor..  "so if a black man needs urgent medical attention and goes to the only doctor in town but is refused service based on his skin color he is just out of luck"
or sometimes they use a hotel saying "if im a black man traveling across the country and i need to stop and get a room but the racist owner denies me service i am $#@! out of luck"

liberal infested waters...
http://rubechat.kfan.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=99108

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> FYI,
> From what i have been hearing from the left... just informing you on what i have heard...
> 
> 1. its not about being forced to serve someone, but about someone being denied service based on the color of their skin. and that no one should be denied service based on skin color.
> 2. they keep using the example of a hospital, or town doctor..  "so if a black man needs urgent medical attention and goes to the only doctor in town but is refused service based on his skin color he is just out of luck"
> or sometimes they use a hotel saying "if im a black man traveling across the country and i need to stop and get a room but the racist owner denies me service i am $#@! out of luck"


who cares? 95% of small businesses fail in their first year. if I take the time and effort in starting one, why cant I serve whoever I want to serve. it's supposed to be MY business, right?

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> I don't understand then, because it seems like you're suggesting otherwise (admittedly I have not read the whole thread).
> 
> Let me be clear. The solution to racist discrimination is not violence by the government, or any other violence. It is the community standing together, and refusing to tolerate it.


I agree with you because one person less than the entire public is not full public access.  Your property, you set the rules.  I think that when you grant total public access you make an unwritten agreement with the public.  As liberty is a constitutional right, does a man have liberty if he cannot go where the public is invited?  This right is not absolute.  If he distrupts business, the owner has property rights to remove him.  

Also the question is very vague.  The term force is pretty broad.  If force means using a court injunction to protect your right to liberty, I can be for it.  I too prefer a non-violent, non-government solution where disagrrement are solved between individuals.

----------


## not.your.average.joe

> who cares? 95% of small businesses fail in their first year. if I take the time and effort in starting one, why cant I serve whoever I want to serve. it's supposed to be MY business, right?


Well, I think that the fact that someone would refuse to serve someone else on the color of their skin alone is discrimination..  and would go against all men being equal?

----------


## tremendoustie

> FYI,
> From what i have been hearing from the left... just informing you on what i have heard...
> 
> 1. its not about being forced to serve someone, but about someone being denied service based on the color of their skin. and that no one should be denied service based on skin color.


Of course. And no one should be a gossip, or a jerk with an anger problem, or a heavy drinker.

The question is, what are we going to do about it? If a person runs their business in a racist way, is the appropriate thing to do, to show up with a gun, and threaten them in order to force them to run their business the way you want them to?

Or is it to speak out against them, boycott, or maybe even pickett them?

Violence, and threats of violence, are not the answer.




> 2. they keep using the example of a hospital, or town doctor..  "so if a black man needs urgent medical attention and goes to the only doctor in town but is refused service based on his skin color he is just out of luck"
> or sometimes they use a hotel saying "if im a black man traveling across the country and i need to stop and get a room but the racist owner denies me service i am $#@! out of luck"


They own their businesses, not you. The fact that a business exists doesn't entitle you to their services.

And why would they want to do business with racists anyway? Choose a route where you won't have to rely on them. Don't hang out in racist towns.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> That can include everyone in the public but one person, if I want.
> 			
> 		
> 
> I am in complete agreement with this.


What he is saying (what virtually everyone here is saying) and what you disagree with (inexplicably) is this: I should be able to have a normal retail business, "open to the public", and refuse to serve black people.  I could do this by putting a sign in the window, or telling black people to leave if they come in, or mounting a camera with pattern recognition software over the doorway that automatically plays a rude message and locks the door whenever it sees a black person approach.

None of these actions violate the black people's rights.  No one has a right to my services.  No one has a right to force me to serve them.  There's a word for that: *Slavery.*  If I have no choice but to serve someone, I would be their slave.

Your come-back to this is that there is a very simple way to avoid this slavery: don't operate in a retail fashion.  Require people to make reservations to come to your gas station or toy store or hot dog stand and suddenly you magically and inexplicably are no longer under obligation to be a slave.  Or make it a club and somehow, bam, you're a free man again.

Fist, as a minor sidenote, I do not think you are right legally as far as the current law in the states.  If Sam's Club or Costco were to decide "we're not going to give membership cards to blacks anymore, no dirty black folk in our store ever again" do you think they'd get away with it?  Do you think there'd be no legal basis to bring any case against them and the gov't would just leave them alone?  Har, har, har!  This would be a lawyer's dream!  He'd be swimming in legal possibilities!  At minimum, they'd be sued class-action for discrimination and almost certainly would lose.  Many groceries have "clubs" complete with cards to get the best deals.  Could they make those clubs exclusionary to blacks?  If Exxon said that from now on you can only buy gas at their stations with their Smart Pass, and you can only get one if you're a male (get those women drivers off the roads), pray tell, would the gov't just sit back and ignore it?

Secondly, as the major point, you are wrong morally.  I should not have to jump through any hoops as a businessman to avoid being a slave.  I don't owe anybody anything.  So the black kid has to walk six blocks to buy milk when I'm just around the corner!  So cry about it!  It's my milk!  My milk, my rules.  Not making people be slaves should simply be the universal default position, in fact, the only position.  It's shocking that this even has to be explained!  Slavery should just not be an option on the table.  Also, this "don't open your doors to the public" is not just some minor hoop to jump through.  It's not just a form you mail in annually saying "please don't make me a slave this year".  No, this "hoop" completely excludes an entire huge class of business: retail.  Restaurants, motels, pawn shops, knick-knack stores, and indeed stores of any kind all (99.9%) operate on a retail model in America (and everywhere else on the planet), meaning open to the public.  That doesn't mean they're not private property.  If I have a yard sale, is my front lawn now "open to the public"?  Sure.  But I still have the absolute human right to holler "get off my yard" if people I hate show up, even if I hate an entire race of people.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> Regarding “clubs”, you mean they can legally discriminate against letting blacks join?


KKK and other clubs and organization exist with the express purpose of dicrimination of blacl people.  Many more organization exist that discriminate but don't express it, like some private social clubs.  

The CRA express says private business with public accomodations.  If you feel it right or wrong a person can open a business or oraganization exclude whatever group they want as long as they don't meet the public accomodation threshold.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> What he is saying (what virtually everyone here is saying) and what you disagree with (inexplicably) is this: I should be able to have a normal retail business, "open to the public", and refuse to serve black people.  I could do this by putting a sign in the window, or telling black people to leave if they come in, or mounting a camera with pattern recognition software over the doorway that automatically plays a rude message and locks the door whenever it sees a black person approach.
> 
> None of these actions violate the black people's rights.  No one has a right to my services.  No one has a right to force me to serve them.  There's a word for that: *Slavery.*  If I have no choice but to serve someone, I would be their slave.
> 
> Your come-back to this is that there is a very simple way to avoid this slavery: don't operate in a retail fashion.  Require people to make reservations to come to your gas station or toy store or hot dog stand and suddenly you magically and inexplicably are no longer under obligation to be a slave.  Or make it a club and somehow, bam, you're a free man again.
> 
> Fist, as a minor sidenote, I do not think you are right legally as far as the current law in the states.  If Sam's Club or Costco were to decide "we're not going to give membership cards to blacks anymore, no dirty black folk in our store ever again" do you think they'd get away with it?  Do you think there'd be no legal basis to bring any case against them and the gov't would just leave them alone?  Har, har, har!  This would be a lawyer's dream!  He'd be swimming in legal possibilities!  At minimum, they'd be sued class-action for discrimination and almost certainly would lose.  Many groceries have "clubs" complete with cards to get the best deals.  Could they make those clubs exclusionary to blacks?  If Exxon said that from now on you can only buy gas at their stations with their Smart Pass, and you can only get one if you're a male (get those women drivers off the roads), pray tell, would the gov't just sit back and ignore it?
> 
> Secondly, as the major point, you are wrong morally.  I should not have to jump through any hoops as a businessman to avoid being a slave.  I don't owe anybody anything.  So the black kid has to walk six blocks to buy milk when I'm just around the corner!  So cry about it!  It's my milk!  My milk, my rules.  Not making people be slaves should simply be the universal default position, in fact, the only position.  It's shocking that this even has to be explained!  Slavery should just not be an option on the table.  Also, this "don't open your doors to the public" is not just some minor hoop to jump through.  It's not just a form you mail in annually saying "please don't make me a slave this year".  No, this "hoop" completely excludes an entire huge class of business: retail.  Restaurants, motels, pawn shops, knick-knack stores, and indeed stores of any kind all (99.9%) operate on a retail model in America (and everywhere else on the planet), meaning open to the public.  That doesn't mean they're not private property.  If I have a yard sale, is my front lawn now "open to the public"?  Sure.  But I still have the absolute human right to holler "get off my yard" if people I hate show up, even if I hate an entire race of people.


You don't agree with the CRA?  

I don't understand your description of slavery.  When I go to the deli to buy a sandwhich I never saw anyone that was not free to quit their job or leave their business.  

SIDENOTE:  Racism is a emotional issue, but everyone on this thread treats each other with respect.  I thank you for for sharing your thoughts without personnal attacks.  It is a very insightful discussion.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think that when you grant total public access you make an unwritten agreement with the public.


I love to sign unwritten agreements.  It's so convenient.  It means I am bound, not just by some specific terms.  Specific terms are so narrow, grasping, small-minded, and neanderthal!  No, we live in a progressive, enlightened world that's moved beyond such primitive relics!  With unwritten agreements, I am bound by undefined, unlimited terms.  Infinite terms: the only terms big enough for modern man's infinitely big heart.  And best of all, I sign unwritten agreements without signing them, without knowing anything about their existence even, without knowing the counter-party, and without the counter-party being aware of the agreement either!  This is the best way to make agreements, I feel.  Why, I'd go so far as saying it's the only sensible, modern way to do things!

----------


## Theocrat

> None of these actions violate the black people's rights.  No one has a right to my services.  No one has a right to force me to serve them.  There's a word for that: *Slavery.*  If I have no choice but to serve someone, I would be their slave.


Yeah, but those on the Left would argue this way:

"I have a right to have healthy food, so you must sell me food that is not toxic to my body that it kills me. The government's job is to protect me from those who seek to kill me."

"I have a right to be treated as an equal human being. Therefore, your store cannot deny me service which makes me feel any less equal than someone else in society. The government's job is to uphold equality for all human beings."

"I have a right to live safely in society, so you must build my house so as not to endanger my life. The government's job is to ensure safety standards are kept for all those who do not build homes that are protective of families."

And the arguments go on and on till the break of dawn. I agree that no one has rights to something God has blessed you with as a steward, but the Leftists do not see it that way. Their whole world revolves around equality and security as the chiefest ends of mankind.

----------


## tremendoustie

> I don't understand your description of slavery.


Slavery might be a bit of an overstatement (it's certainly nothing like chattel slavery) but the basic idea -- the idea of owning other people -- is the same.

I don't own you, and I don't own the fruit of your labor. If I start using the threat of violence to force you to live your life, or use your property and finances the way I choose, I am asserting that I own them, at least to an extent -- and own you.

The reality is, as long as you don't harm other persons or property, how you live your life is your business.




> When I go to the deli to buy a sandwhich I never saw anyone that was not  free to quit their job or leave their business.


But, I don't have a right to give a person the choice, "obey my diktats or leave your business".

It's not nearly as bad as chattel slavery, though, you're certainly right about that.




> SIDENOTE:  Racism is a emotional issue, but everyone on this thread treats each other with respect.  I thank you for for sharing your thoughts without personnal attacks.  It is a very insightful discussion.


Agreed

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> I love to sign unwritten agreements.  It's so convenient.  It means I am bound, not just by some specific terms.  Specific terms are so narrow, grasping, small-minded, and neanderthal!  No, we live in a progressive, enlightened world that's moved beyond such primitive relics!  With unwritten agreements, I am bound by undefined, unlimited terms.  Infinite terms: the only terms big enough for modern man's infinitely big heart.  And best of all, I sign unwritten agreements without signing them, without knowing anything about their existence even, without knowing the counter-party, and without the counter-party being aware of the agreement either!  This is the best way to make agreements, I feel.  Why, I'd go so far as saying it's the only sensible, modern way to do things!


Good point.  How about the US constitution?  I realized you may have not signed or sworn to anything that binds you to it.  The constitution says we have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Do you agree that these rights are not absolute? (Can't yell fire in a theater)

Does a man have liberty if can cannot go where the public is invited?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You don't agree with the CRA?


 Obviously not.




> I don't understand your description of slavery.


 Slavery is involuntary servitude
.



> When I go to the deli to buy a sandwhich I never saw anyone that was not free to quit their job or leave their business.


  Exactly.  Leave the business.  That is the only option.  I already said this would be your come-back ("Your come-back to this is that there is a very simple way to avoid this slavery: don't operate in a retail fashion.").

But this is not acceptable.  What if I want to be in the deli business and there's some "protected" group I don't want to serve?  You're saying the only way for me to avoid involuntary servitude is to get out of the deli business entirely.  Give up my dream.  Or run it in a nonsensical way, by requiring reservations or some silly scheme (which in the real world, as I said, I doubt would shield you from the USA legal regime anyway) which amounts to the same thing as leaving the business since such a model would be unworkable and go out of business.

It is just not acceptable to force the racist deli owner to either be a slave or close his business.  That's a false dichtomony. 

Does a business owner violate anyone's rights when he goes out of business and then doesn't sell anyone any milk?  If the answer is no, then he cannot, he *cannot,* violate anyone's rights by refusing to sell them the milk.  Either he owes you service of selling the milk or he doesn't.

----------


## tremendoustie

> I agree with you because one person less than the entire public is not full public access.


"Everyone but KKK members", or "Everyone but black people" is also less than the entire public.




> Your property, you set the rules.  I think that when you grant total public access you make an unwritten agreement with the public.


How so? People who I want to allow on my property can come on it, those who I don't, can't. There's no "unwritten agreement", it's just basic property rights.

I think supposed "unwritten agreements" are a lot like "made up agreements". I can pretend anything you do constitutes an "unwritten agreement" with me, and use that to justify any demand I want, but it's baloney unless you actually, explicitly, agreed.




> As liberty is a constitutional right, does a man have liberty if he cannot go where the public is invited?


"The public" is not some monolithic entity. It is a collection of individuals -- some of whom are invited, and others not.




> This right is not absolute.  If he distrupts business, the owner has property rights to remove him.


He has a right to remove him for any reason, because it's his property.




> Also the question is very vague.  The term force is pretty broad.  If force means using a court injunction to protect your right to liberty, I can be for it.


A "court injunction" is backed by guns. Euphemism aside, this is threatening to send men with guns to someone's home or business, to drag them off and lock them in a cage, if they run said business or home in a way I do not approve of.




> I too prefer a non-violent, non-government solution where disagrrement are solved between individuals.


Cool .

Frankly, if I discovered racism at a local store, I'd be outing them in front of the community, and immediately calling for boycotts. I think this is the appropriate way to handle bigots -- refuse to associate with them in any professional capacity, or personal one (excepting maybe discussion of the issue at hand), until the problem is resolved.

Pickets are legitimate and effective also.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Good point.  How about the US constitution?  I realized you may have not signed or sworn to anything that binds you to it.


Nope, I didn't sign the constitution, and am not bound by it. I reserve all my rights, and do not believe I have "delegated" any.

The government agreed to obey it, however, and it'd be nice if they would at least do that much.




> The constitution says we have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Do you agree that these rights are not absolute? (Can't yell fire in a theater)


I think a more succinct and consistent description of rights, is that I have the right to live my life as I choose, as long as I don't harm other persons or property -- conversely, to act with aggressive violence, to harm another person or their property, is wrong.




> Does a man have liberty if can cannot go where the public is invited?


I guess our posts kind of crossed here. See my reply to this, above.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

What we are talking about here is judicial doctrine.  For the first 150 years of this country the court held:
The words written in the constitution mean what the authors wrote. (ie  commerce = trade)

After the new deal judicial doctrine became:
Congress can define what the word commerce means via the ballot box and democratic process AND remedy is via the ballot box and democratic process (ie. commerce = everything and if you don't like it go vote)

That is the main constitutional problem.




> Fist, as a minor sidenote, I do not think you are right legally as far as the current law in the states.


I question your infringement upon the natural constitutionally guaranteed rights of people to contract.  It has been upheld by the judicial branch and there are tests that determine whether or not a statue impairs a contractual obligation.




> *No State shall* enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; *pass any* Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or *Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts*, or grant any Title of Nobility.


I think you are inaccurate to say it is a lawyers dream because there are still several private clubs that discriminate in the United States.




> NBC reports that more than 60 African-American campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club because -- according to John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club -- "there was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion ... and the atmosphere of the club."
> 
> It may surprise some Americans to learn that not only do certain private clubs still refuse to admit African-Americans, women, and gay people, but that this kind of enrollment discrimination is considered perfectly legal.
> 
> While the total number of private clubs is unknown, there are around at least 4,000 private golf clubs, according to Golf Digest. Of course, since these clubs are private, their exact enrollment standards aren't part of the public record, so there is no way to know for sure if they discriminate against ethnic minorities, women, or homosexuals. Furthermore, even if they do adopt official "white males only" policies, these practices are considered "legal" in some jurisdictions, though many clubs have been sued for discrimination.
> 
> Because of the shroud of secrecy surrounding enrollment at private clubs, these discriminatory practices usually only come to light when the media catches a prominent politician on the fairway. Katon Dawson, South Carolina GOP chairman and former candidate for the RNC chair, was forced to resign from the Forest Lake Club after members made public the fact that the club has a whites-only restriction and no black members. Then there was Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), who hosted a golf fundraiser at a whites-only club back in 2000 along with then-lawmakers Bob Ney and Tom DeLay.
> 
> Back in 1992, Bill Clinton was accused of attending an all-white private golf club, though Mark Grobmeyer, the Little Rock lawyer who played at the club with Clinton, denied there was a "no blacks" policy. Why were there no black players then? Mr. Grobmeyer replied, "None have applied."
> ...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Does a man have liberty if can cannot go where the public is invited?


Yes.  I can invite the public to my house and even explicitly say "come one, come all" but then when I see Sean Hannity show up say "Umm, never mind, you can't come in.  It's everyone except for you, now."  The property owner can be as capricious and arbitrary and unfair as he wishes in whom he allows on his property, and he doesn't owe anyone an explanation or excuse.

In the above example, Hannity is still free as a bird (and as smart).  I think we can all agree on that.  He still has liberty, even though he cannot go where the public is invited.  Philosophically, it's the same thing if a black guy shows up and you tell him to get lost.

You're making this "open to the public" thing into some huge, mystical quantum that suddenly erases my property rights and "changes everything", just like 9/11 supposedly changed everything.  No, it doesn't change everything.  It changes nothing.  My natural human rights still exist, and that means the right associate with whomever I choose, regardless of what business model with which I'm operating.

Your right to swing around your fist ends just short of my nose, and your right to wander around ends just short of my property line.  In retail establishments, there is an implicit invitation to enter, that is true.  But that invitation can be modified.  It can be modified in whatever capricious, arbitrary way the owner wishes.

If the Amish want to have a store where cell phones are banned, they have that right.  Now, you may say "but cell phone users aren't a protected group", as if I should care, or "they can leave their cell-phones in the car, but a black man can't leave his blackness in the car", which is a more valid point.  Nevertheless, the principle remains.  What if the Amish religion were a little different and instead of just technology they were against black people, too, because the Bible says they're descendants of Cain.  So, they just had a very polite sign in the polite Amish way on the door: "Please, no cameras, cell phones, or African-Americans inside. We apologize for any inconvenience."  Surely you could accept they are perfectly justified in doing that. Surely you wouldn't force them to go against their beliefs, would you?

Would you?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Secondly, as the major point, you are wrong morally.  I should not have to jump through any hoops as a businessman to avoid being a slave.


Yes this is where you contradict ethics because it is not a crime for people to hold a belief of racial superiority.  Jews live by this doctrine.  But if in order to conduct commerce on my property if I must submit to a belief under the threat of force (aka coercion) I have become a slave.




> I don't owe anybody anything.  So the black kid has to walk six blocks to buy milk when I'm just around the corner!  So cry about it!  It's my milk!  My milk, my rules.  Not making people be slaves should simply be the universal default position, in fact, the only position.  It's shocking that this even has to be explained!  Slavery should just not be an option on the table.


Slavery (ie coercion of human beings) should never be an option on the table.  I agree.  That means eliminating coercion and forcing people to convert to a particular ethical or moral belief under a threat of force.




> But I still have the absolute human right to holler "get off my yard" if people I hate show up, even if I hate an entire race of people.


No you do not have that absolute right once you obtained government permission to conduct commerce on your private property.  If it was absolute you would not be required to defend yourself if a discrimination charge was placed against you.  However the courts will force you to answer such a charge.

----------


## PaleoForPaul

so was this guys civil rights violated when they wouldn't wash his KKK suit?

YouTube - The Amazing Racist - Ari nearly gets killed LOL!

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> No you do not have that absolute right once you obtained government permission to conduct commerce on your private property.  If it was absolute you would not be required to defend yourself if a discrimination charge was placed against you.  However the courts will force you to answer such a charge.


You lost me here.  Are you sure about "government permission to conduct commerce on your private property"?  We don't need no stinking badges or government permission to conduct business on our own property.

----------


## Theocrat

> so was this guys civil rights violated when they wouldn't wash his KKK suit?
> 
> YouTube - The Amazing Racist - Ari nearly gets killed LOL!


No, his rights were violated when he was refused the opportunity to buy lighters at that corner store.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Live_Free_Or_Die,

Thank you for your replies. Regarding the current legal situation in the USA, first let me say again this is the more minor issue to me.  My position is that the legal situation in the USA is generally horrible, ludicrous, and moronic, on every topic.  But I do think you're not being realistic in your expectations if you think Sam's Club could exclude black people because, after all, it's a private club. That kind of thing is just not going to be permitted.  We live under a gov't of men, not of laws.  What the written law technically says is not going to be an issue; what the Constitution says is not going to be an issue (what the Constitution says has not been an issue for a long time, let's be honest).  If every politician in the country wants to crush Sam's Club, they're going down, that's all there is to it.

On the philosophical/moral side of things, you say:



> No you do not have that absolute right once you obtained government permission to conduct commerce on your private property.  If it was absolute you would not be required to defend yourself if a discrimination charge was placed against you.  However the courts will force you to answer such a charge.


It seems that here you are bringing in the actual practical legal reality again.  That's not what I was talking about.  Whether the gov't goons respect or acknowledge a right is irrelevant to whether said right exists.  I do have the absolute right to holler "get out".  I do have the absolute right to discriminate.  The courts, by using aggressive force against me, simply violate my right.  They do not erase the right.  The right's still there, unalienated, and indeed *inalienable.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Slavery (ie coercion of human beings) should never be an option on the table.  I agree.  That means eliminating coercion and forcing people to convert to a particular ethical or moral belief under a threat of force.


 Wait wait, wait, I missed this the first read.  Are you saying what I think you're saying?

----------


## anaconda

How would Rachel answer this? YES OR NO!!!!!!

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You lost me here.  Are you sure about "government permission to conduct commerce on your private property"?  We don't need no stinking badges or government permission to conduct business on our own property.


1.  You do have to obtain permission because government regulates all commerce unless your circumstances are specifically exempted.  Otherwise you must obtain a home officer permit, garage sale permit, etc.

2.  #1 is only semi relevant because if you were conducting commerce on your property the courts would force you to answer the charge because you discriminated while conducting commerce.

----------


## tremendoustie

> No you do not have that absolute right once you obtained government permission to conduct commerce on your private property.  If it was absolute you would not be required to defend yourself if a discrimination charge was placed against you.  However the courts will force you to answer such a charge.


The government does all sorts of arbitrary and immoral things. The fact that a government does something does not mean it's respecting individual rights. Quite the opposite, in most cases.

"If it was absolute you would not be required to defend yourself"

That's the core of the silliness. The government used to require slaves stay on the plantation. Does that mean they didn't have a right to freedom?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> so was this guys civil rights violated when they wouldn't wash his KKK suit?
> 
> YouTube - The Amazing Racist - Ari nearly gets killed LOL!


I hope that gets forwarded to Maddow because that will bring the hypocrisy right out into the open.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Wait wait, wait, I missed this the first read.  Are you saying what I think you're saying?


Ok I am going to skip replying to the legal one since that is not where our discussion will focus.  I do not understand your question.  What do you think I am saying?

I am saying I do not trust people who would ask me to convert to a belief under a threat of force.

It doesn't matter what it is.  It could be a preacher on sunday telling me ahshalakalaka I am going to eternal damnation if I do not repent on all fours right now.

It could be a thief.

Or it could be government telling me what I can or can not do with my property (in the context I use it which is property = land + labor not necessarily arbitrary borders)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What do you think I am saying?


What I was thinking, until you explained yourself just now, was that you meant it would be forceful and coercive to force people to stop believing in and practicing slavery.  Here's what you wrote:

Slavery (ie coercion of human beings) should never be an option on the table. I agree. That means eliminating coercion and forcing people to convert to a particular ethical or moral belief under a threat of force.

You can see how it could be read: "Eliminating slavery means forcing people to convert to a particular ethical belief (that of anti-slavery) under threat of force."  I just read too much into it. And then your username, with a gun pointing at me asking "Believe Now?" just all seemed to fit together into the picture of you believing libertarians are hypocritical because we ourselves want to use force by "forcing" everyone else to believe our way and to not use force.   The fact that this is exactly what furface was saying earlier in this thread ( http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...98#post2705598 ) made it more on my mind, of course.

----------


## jmdrake

> FYI,
> From what i have been hearing from the left... just informing you on what i have heard...
> 
> 1. its not about being forced to serve someone, but about someone being denied service based on the color of their skin. and that no one should be denied service based on skin color.
> 2. they keep using the example of a hospital, or town doctor..  "so if a black man needs urgent medical attention and goes to the only doctor in town but is refused service based on his skin color he is just out of luck"
> or sometimes they use a hotel saying "if im a black man traveling across the country and i need to stop and get a room but the racist owner denies me service i am $#@! out of luck"
> 
> liberal infested waters...
> http://rubechat.kfan.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=99108


1) The poll itself is silly.  And silly polls are a good way to back yourself into a corner.  Look at it this way.  Rand and Ron both support desegregation of public facilities and public institutions like the armed forces.  So should the military have to let members of Al Qaeda or the Communist party join?  Sorry, but there is a difference between immutable characteristics from birth and personal choices.  Heck, the Republican party in Kentucky doesn't have to allow Democrats to vote in their closed primary either.

2) Hospitals and doctors are regulated by the government.  Governments only allow so many hospitals in an area.  So in effect since the supply is artificially limited by the government, the government should step in a fix the problem it helped create.  If we were able to have a "McEmergency" on every block then perhaps that wouldn't be an issue, but I wouldn't argue it one way or another.

Instead of fallacious arguments, pick a real one like "Should the congressional black caucus have to admit white members"?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> What I was thinking, until you explained yourself just now, was that you meant it would be forceful and coercive to force people to stop believing in and practicing slavery.  Here's what you wrote:
> 
> Slavery (ie coercion of human beings) should never be an option on the table. I agree. That means eliminating coercion and forcing people to convert to a particular ethical or moral belief under a threat of force.
> 
> You can see how it could be read: "Eliminating slavery means forcing people to convert to a particular ethical belief (that of anti-slavery) under threat of force."  I just read too much into it. And then your username, with a gun pointing at me asking "Believe Now?" just all seemed to fit together into the picture of you believing libertarians are hypocritical because we ourselves want to use force by "forcing" everyone else to believe our way and to not use force.   The fact that this is exactly what furface was saying earlier in this thread ( http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...98#post2705598 ) made it more on my mind, of course.


I have always held a consistent view for non-aggression principles and self ownership.  I don't think my voluntaryist views are a secret. I only hammer away at the constitution because the statists won't give up that monopoly on justice but they will accept a belief of original intent due to Ron Paul.  The avatar I recently started using points out the hypocrisy of coercion, from my perspective anyway.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I have always held a consistent view for non-aggression principles and self ownership.  I don't think my voluntaryist views are a secret. I only hammer away at the constitution because the statists won't give up that monopoly on justice but they will accept a belief of original intent due to Ron Paul.  The avatar I recently started using points out the hypocrisy of coercion, from my perspective anyway.


Yes yes, it all makes sense now. You phrased your sentence wrongly and I just misunderstood.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Well, I think that the fact that someone would refuse to serve someone else on the color of their skin alone is discrimination..  and would go against all men being equal?


"all men being equal" is supposed to be governnment treatment of citizens. the free market is different.

----------


## Promontorium

> Then you simply don't get it.  State rights are a central issue to both Ron Paul and Rand Paul's politics.
> 
> The right to live in the type of community you wish is fundamental.  It's arguably more important than the much bantered "individual rights."


 I see you trolling, mostly on the Rand forums. 



 That there is the heart and soul of socialism.

----------


## Promontorium

> 1) The poll itself is silly.  And silly polls are a good way to back yourself into a corner.  Look at it this way.  Rand and Ron both support desegregation of public facilities and public institutions like the armed forces.  So should the military have to let members of Al Qaeda or the Communist party join?  Sorry, but there is a difference between immutable characteristics from birth and personal choices.  Heck, the Republican party in Kentucky doesn't have to allow Democrats to vote in their closed primary either.
> 
> 2) Hospitals and doctors are regulated by the government.  Governments only allow so many hospitals in an area.  So in effect since the supply is artificially limited by the government, the government should step in a fix the problem it helped create.  If we were able to have a "McEmergency" on every block then perhaps that wouldn't be an issue, but I wouldn't argue it one way or another.
> 
> Instead of fallacious arguments, pick a real one like "Should the congressional black caucus have to admit white members"?



 There's nothing wrong with the poll. The presumption from people attacking Rand is that business owners are racist and must be forced to serve people of the race they hate. To put the shoe on the other foot, you must assume the customer is racist. 

 If neither were racist *there would be no issue to discuss.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If neither were racist *there would be no issue to discuss.*


I suppose the perfect inversal would be this:

*Should a racist customer(black or white) be allowed to refuse to patronize a business because it's owned/staffed by blacks/whites?*

The original question being: 

Should a racist business owner/manager be able to refuse service to a customer because he is black/white?

So why not legislate the customers' actions?  Businesses are hurt by racist customers just as customers are hurt by racist businesses.  Shouldn't we lock up white people who refuse to frequent Joe's store just because he's black?  If anything, isn't the damage from that even worse than the other?  The damage inflicted by the inconvenience of not being able to sit with white people at lunch is relatively minor.  If you were to put a monetary value on it, it would be close to zero, a few dollars at most.  A lot of black people probably didn't have any burning desire to sit with the whites anyway, just as many would've been perfectly happy to keep all-black schools if they could've had the same quality and funding as the white schools.  Anyway, in contrast, the black businessman who's a victim of racism stands to be completely ruined, bankrupted, and lose his home, his livelihood, his savings, every worldly thing he has. He has suffered ten thousand times more real damage to his life than the guy who has to drive an extra few blocks to the drug store that serves blacks.  Yet the racist customers can ruin this man's life freely, even openly organize and publicize a large-scale racist boycott if they like, with no fear of legal retribution.  Why?

So many of these stupid fallacies and laws are based on a ridiculously over-inflated view of the power of businessmen vis a vis customers and employees.  So customers and employees never get restrictions, always the businessman.  No American would dream that it could be just to force a _customer_ to do business in a certain way or with certain people, for _any_ reason, not even social justice or anti-racism!  There would never, never be a complaint brought up of "he refused to buy my house because I'm black", no one would care, the seller would get no sympathy, the non-buyer wouldn't face fines or jail, but yet somehow if someone complains "he refused to sell me his house because I'm black", Outrage!  Panic!  Hysteria!

The vendor is always the bad guy.  The buyer is always the good guy.  The customer is the powerless victim.  The business man is the omnipotent oppressor.  Just a stupid, stupid, Marx/Smith/Ricardo myth.  This issue is not only about racism.  Like so many other issues, bad economics plays a huge, crucial role.

----------


## crushingstep7

FORCE
$#@! that
feel the force of my shotty lol

----------


## jmdrake

> There's nothing wrong with the poll. The presumption from people attacking Rand is that business owners are racist and must be forced to serve people of the race they hate. To put the shoe on the other foot, you must assume the customer is racist. 
> 
>  If neither were racist *there would be no issue to discuss.*


There's plenty wrong with the poll as I've already pointed out.  You just aren't willing to admit it's a stupid analogy.

Look at it this way.  Rand himself said that it's not ok for the government to discriminate on the basis of race.  Ron took the same position.  *Does that mean that the government can't discriminate on the basis of membership in an organization even if membership in that organization represents a threat to national security?*  Once you realize that you see how stupid the poll is.  Also if a customer comes in dressed in a KKK uniform or says he's a klansman *you no longer have to "assume" he is racist.  It kinda comes with the territory!* 

But here's the real reason why the poll fails.  Let's suppose my son was in a car accident and I had to rush him to the hospital.  Let's say I also owned a restaurant that didn't serve KKK members.  (Actually I would serve them.  If they wanted to give me their money then great!  Less money for these jerks to spend on something nefarious.  And they'd be eating at their own risk.   )  Let's say the hospital director said "We'll only work on your son if you sign this contract promising to let klansmen eat at your restaurant"?  Do you think I'd sign it?  *Hell yeah I'd sign it!*  I might sue later to get out of the contract because of duress.  Then again if this meant I could always go to this hospital (and there was no other hospital around that served blacks) I'd consider that a fair trade.  So just from a rational economic sense it's stupid to forgo the right to *badly* needed services just to avoid serving someone else that you don't like, especially if you're going to get *paid* to offer the service.  Prior to desegregation black people served racist white people all the time in various capacities.  

Final point.  *There are very good arguments that can be made for the position that Rand "kinda sorta - not really" took.  This just isn't one of them.*

----------


## jmdrake

> I suppose the perfect inversal would be this:
> 
> *Should a racist customer(black or white) be allowed to refuse to patronize a business because it's owned/staffed by blacks/whites?*
> 
> The original question being: 
> 
> Should a racist business owner/manager be able to refuse service to a customer because he is black/white?
> 
> So why not legislate the customers' actions?  Businesses are hurt by racist customers just as customers are hurt by racist businesses.  Shouldn't we lock up white people who refuse to frequent Joe's store just because he's black?  If anything, isn't the damage from that even worse than the other?  The damage inflicted by the inconvenience of not being able to sit with white people at lunch is relatively minor.  If you were to put a monetary value on it, it would be close to zero, a few dollars at most.  A lot of black people probably didn't have any burning desire to sit with the whites anyway, just as many would've been perfectly happy to keep all-black schools if they could've had the same quality and funding as the white schools.  Anyway, in contrast, the black businessman who's a victim of racism stands to be completely ruined, bankrupted, and lose his home, his livelihood, his savings, every worldly thing he has. He has suffered ten thousand times more real damage to his life than the guy who has to drive an extra few blocks to the drug store that serves blacks.  Yet the racist customers can ruin this man's life freely, even openly organize and publicize a large-scale racist boycott if they like, with no fear of legal retribution.  Why?
> ...


1) You can't claim a harm that you don't know about.  If you are refused service at a lunch counter (or anywhere else) you know about that.

2) If the service is essential and if the supply is limited then your economic argument fails.  Forget lunch counters and talk hospitals.  (Note that hospitals are artificially limited by state and local governments through "certificate of need".  But they might also be limited through economic reasons).  A boycott of an essential service is unlikely.  (Hard to do since its essential).  

That said, the bigger problem was the Jim Crow laws which artificially *forced* business to segregate, along with the thread of white boycotts and violence against businesses who might otherwise not segregate.  The government has no power against boycotts white or black, but if the Jim Crow laws had been done away with earlier and groups like the KKK been reigned in, the situation might have sorted itself out.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

jmdrake,

My proposed inversal solves completely the problems you found with the question in this poll.  Your two objections do not really make a dent in it.

1) Knowledge of harm.  So, the customer tells you.  I already addressed this: "Yet the racist customers can ruin this man's life freely, even *openly organize* and *publicize* a large-scale racist boycott if they like, with no fear of legal retribution."  A customer can walk up to the counter and tell you "I'm not shopping here because you're a honky" or even half the town can take out full-page ads announcing a boycott of Joe's Hardware because Joe is black.  Furthermore, the lunch counter or hospital could refuse to serve you without telling you why, they could just quietly not serve blacks without advertising it.  So "knowledge of harm" can be present or non-present in both scenarios.  Anyway, _in the racist customers scenario we find the exact same behavior as in the racist Woolworths scenario!_  They are both refusals to do business based on race.  The only difference is, in one the racist is the seller and in the other the racist is the purchaser.  Morally, should it make a difference?  Does it?  Can you explain to me in a geometry-style proof why according to your theory vendor-racism should be crushed by the state while consumer-racism should be a permissible behavior?

2) "If the service is essential and if the supply is limited then your economic argument fails."  Sorry, but this is just a completely unsupported, insubstantiated, fiat declaration and so I can find no reason whatsoever to believe it, thus, sadly, it is impossible for me to argue against it.  You have to at least give some plausible reason why someone, somewhere might be inclined to believe a statement for me to refute those reasons.  And I am too tired right now to be inclined to make up those reasons for you.  But I can vaguely point you in the right direction that this assertion 2) has something more or less to do with that grossly over-inflated view of the power of businesses over consumers I talked about.

----------


## Son of Liberty 2

Absolutely not. This question is clever.

----------


## jmdrake

> jmdrake,
> 
> My proposed inversal solves completely the problems you found with the question in this poll.  Your two objections do not really make a dent in it.
> 
> 1) Knowledge of harm.  So, the customer tells you.  I already addressed this: "Yet the racist customers can ruin this man's life freely, even *openly organize* and *publicize* a large-scale racist boycott if they like, with no fear of legal retribution."  A customer can walk up to the counter and tell you "I'm not shopping here because you're a honky" or even half the town can take out full-page ads announcing a boycott of Joe's Hardware because Joe is black.  Furthermore, the lunch counter or hospital could refuse to serve you without telling you why, they could just quietly not serve blacks without advertising it.  So "knowledge of harm" can be present or non-present in both scenarios.  Anyway, _in the racist customers scenario we find the exact same behavior as in the racist Woolworths scenario!_  They are both refusals to do business based on race.  The only difference is, in one the racist is the seller and in the other the racist is the purchaser.  Morally, should it make a difference?  Does it?  Can you explain to me in a geometry-style proof why according to your theory vendor-racism should be crushed by the state while consumer-racism should be a permissible behavior?


The argument still fails.  Let's say the government passes two laws.  One says vendors can't *say* why they are refusing to serve black customers, but they are free to arbitrarily refuse anybody.  The other says customers can't picket businesses and cannot *say* why they are not buying something.  What now?  There is now no knowledge problem for the businesses.  They don't know why black customers (or white customers) don't come in.  Could be not enough advertising.  It could be for a variety of reasons.  But if a business refuses to serve any black customer it will be obvious.  

Look at it another way.  Say if we were talking about voting instead of businesses.  Do you think that people should be compelled to vote just because the government shouldn't be allowed, without cause for something other than race, deny them the right to vote?  Using your analogy, the government should be compelling people not only to vote, but to vote for candidates outside their race.





> 2) "If the service is essential and if the supply is limited then your economic argument fails."  Sorry, but this is just a completely unsupported, insubstantiated, fiat declaration and so I can find no reason whatsoever to believe it, thus, sadly, it is impossible for me to argue against it.


That's because you are ignorant of how the hospital system works.  You can't just go out and build a hospital.  You have to first have a *certificate of need from the government*.  If you even try to even *expand* your hospital, if you don't have a certificate of need the state regulators can shut you down.  *I know this because I personally knew a hospital administrator that this happened too!*

Now you might say "Well the state shouldn't be able to do that."  But they can.  That's "states rights" at work.  The only way the federal government could step in and stop this is through the interstate commerce clause.  But that's the same clause used to justify the part of the CRA that everyone is complaining about.

Tying this into the discussion, if you lived in an area with a hospital that only served people of a different race *and if the state regulators were not willing to give a certificate of need for any other hospitals* then you'd be out of luck.  Even if you knew people who were willing to build a hospital to serve you, they wouldn't be able to do so.

Last point.  There are ways to argue your position.  You just haven't stumbled on them yet.

----------


## jmdrake

> Absolutely not. This question is clever.


I'm curious.  Why do you think the average black person would even care?  Like I said in an earlier post.  If a klansman wanted to buy food in my restaurant I'd be happy to take his money.  And I think he'd be stupid to eat my food.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The argument still fails.


 Oh really?  And which argument is that?  Let's be specific, and thus, meaningful, shall we?  The argument that in the racist customers scenario we find the exact same behavior as in the racist Woolworths scenario?  Because that was, obviously, the main argument made in that paragraph.  Why, I even bolded it. Do you contest that argument?




> Let's say the government passes two laws.  One says vendors can't *say* why they are refusing to serve black customers, but they are free to arbitrarily refuse anybody.  The other says customers can't picket businesses and cannot *say* why they are not buying something [if it's for racist reasons].  What now?


 Well, yeah!  What now?  Now the same identical behavior by customers and businessmen is treated the same identical way.  So why is it that no one on planet earth would support such a law limiting customers in this way?  I think it's because of an anti-business bias and a ridiculously over-inflated view of the power of businesses.  Do you disagree?

BTW, I am thrilled to see Jacob Hornberger wrote an article making this exact same point, and am very proud that I could independently come up with the same thought as him.





> Look at it another way.  Say if we were talking about voting instead of businesses.  Do you think that people should be compelled to vote just because the government shouldn't be allowed, without cause for something other than race, deny them the right to vote?  Using your analogy, the government should be compelling people not only to vote, but to vote for candidates outside their race.


  There we go!  Exactly!  It's the same principle, isn't it?  There should be a quota/affirmative action program begun to make sure that every voter supports a "fair" proportion of minority candidates.  If it's evil and horrid to hire too many whites, surely it's even more evil and horrid to support too many whites for elective office.  We must stomp out this sin of discrimination everywhere we can, by any means necessary.

Next up: mandatory miscegenation.





> That's because you are ignorant of how the hospital system works.


 I am ignorant of many things.  Though you have no basis for knowing whether I am ignorant or not on this subject, as it happens I am in fact ignorant of the details of running a hospital, at least more so than you seem to be claiming to be.  So you have guessed rightly. Of course, when one knows a great deal on an esoteric topic, it is usually a safe guess that any person picked at random will be quite ignorant about it compared to oneself.  Whether this makes it a sensible practice to go around calling everyone ignorant is another matter.  A matter for the courts to decide, I suppose.  Everything else is.




> You can't just go out and build a hospital.  You have to first have a *certificate of need from the government*.  If you even try to even *expand* your hospital, if you don't have a certificate of need the state regulators can shut you down.  *I know this because I personally knew a hospital administrator that this happened too!*
> 
> Now you might say "Well the state shouldn't be able to do that."  But they can.  That's "states rights" at work.


 I have a dream, that by focusing on one topic at a time, without bringing in other bizarrely irrelevant side issues, internet forum posters will be able to think more clearly about the topic at hand.




> Last point.  There are ways to argue your position.  You just haven't stumbled on them yet.


 Apparently, the correct way involves hospitals.  Perhaps the Panic of 1819 and mandatory pet licensing could also be brought in to make things clear.

I'm still waiting for my geometry-style proof of why the state is justified in crushing vendor-racism, but not in crushing buyer-racism, if that is your position.  If not, perhaps you could explain your position.  Or, you could explain to me more about hospitals.

----------


## kylejack

Race is a protected class, organizational membership is not, so yes people can discriminate based on organizational membership.

----------


## virgil47

> Race is a protected class, organizational membership is not, so yes people can discriminate based on organizational membership.


So white restaurant owners can refuse service to known members of the NAACP?

----------


## torchbearer

> So white restaurant owners can refuse service to known members of the NAACP?


in a world that respects self-ownership. yes.

----------


## kylejack

> So white restaurant owners can refuse service to known members of the NAACP?


Yes, provided they are only doing it to NAACP members and not to a race in general.  Note that there are also some white members of NAACP and other races.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes, provided they are only doing it to NAACP members and not to a race in general.  Note that there are also some white members of NAACP and other races.

----------


## kylejack

> 


What in the world are you talking about?  Basically you don't understand CRA and I am trying to explain it to you.  It prohibits discrimination on the basis of protected class.

----------


## virgil47

> in a world that respects self-ownership. yes.


Sounds pretty good to me.

----------


## Theocrat

> What in the world are you talking about?  Basically you don't understand CRA and I am trying to explain it to you.  It prohibits discrimination on the basis of protected class.


I posted that tongue-in-cheek, but you and I both know that if any establishment refused service to the NAACP, it would be seen as racist. The media would have a field day with it.

----------


## kylejack

> I posted that tongue-in-cheek, but you and I both know that if any establishment refused service to the NAACP, it would be seen as racist. The media would have a field day with it.


Well then let me point out another principle to you, freedom of speech.  The media may have  a field day if they wish.

----------


## tremendoustie

Rights are not determined by government. Anyone has a right to decide who to allow or disallow on their property, and who to serve. Others have a right to publicize such bigotry, boycott and picket the business, as well as boycott suppliers and customers.

----------


## kylejack

> Rights are not determined by government. Anyone has a right to decide who to allow or disallow on their property, and who to serve. Others have a right to publicize such bigotry, boycott and picket the business, as well as boycott suppliers and customers.


But his original question was a legal one about Title II of CRA, not a moral question.

----------


## tremendoustie

> But his original question was a legal one about Title II of CRA, not a moral question.


Oh, fair enough then. Sorry for misconstruing the discussion.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The argument still fails.


JMDrake, I still am confused and wondering what your position was/is on all this.  What were you trying to say?

----------


## jmdrake

> JMDrake, I still am confused and wondering what your position was/is on all this.  What were you trying to say?


That the very premise of this thread is irredeemably stupid.  I will sum up it's stupidity in two points.

1) Membership in a private organization is not and never will be a "protected class".  If a white restaurant owner wanted to bar all member of the NAACP from his establishment he could without violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

2) If blacks had to agree to let a klansman eat at a black owned restaurant in order to end segregation, public and private, most blacks would chose to let the klansman eat at the black restaurant.  I don't know what that's so freaking hard for people here at RPF to understand.

If you want to make headway with black people on the Civil Rights Act, come up with another example.  We really don't give a rats ass about whether or not a customer wears white sheets in his spare time.




Edit: There is an anti CRA argument that might actually hold water.  But I will leave it up to others to point that out.  Those who wish to continue to defend John Stossel's abject idiocy on this issue don't deserve enlightenment.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Edit: There is an anti CRA argument that might actually hold water.


Wait, so you are in favor of the Civil Rights Act?

----------


## jmdrake

> Race is a protected class, organizational membership is not, so yes people can discriminate based on organizational membership.





> So white restaurant owners can refuse service to known members of the NAACP?





> in a world that respects self-ownership. yes.





> Yes, provided they are only doing it to NAACP members and not to a race in general.  Note that there are also some white members of NAACP and other races.


^This 1 zillion times over!  Not sure why some people can't understand simple things like "Membership in a group that you can leave anytime you like does not make you part of a protected class."

----------


## jmdrake

> Wait, so you are in favor of the Civil Rights Act?


I don't give a rip about it one way or the other.  The feds injected themselves into private business long before the CRA.  (Wickard v. Filburn).  Segregation, even private segregation, was giving way prior to the passage of the CRA.  It's still possible for restaurants and hotels to openly discriminate based on race and not fall afoul of the CRA if they *really* want to.  (Hint.  Look up and *understand* the meaning of the term "public accommodation").  It's really not worth the mental energy that you and others are putting into.  But I *freaking hate stupid arguments like the one John Stossel pushed and some idiots here picked up without thinking through!*  If I could I'd dump Stossel off a bridge for being so stupid.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Relevant reading...*


KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan*...




> "_The KKK is for a strong America_," John Abarr of the  Rocky Mountain Knights told The Great Falls Tribune newspaper.  "_White supremacy is the old Klan. This is the new Klan_."


Continued - KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't give a rip about it one way or the other.


 OK.




> The feds injected themselves into private business long before the CRA.


 My position is, of course, that they shouldn't.  Do you agree?




> Segregation, even private segregation, was giving way prior to the passage of the CRA.


 It was essentially a non-issue in places with freedom on the issue.  As blacks in Alabama were protesting not being able to eat at Woolworth's, blacks in Chicago were sitting at Woolworth's eating sandwiches peacefully alongside the whites.



It wasn't a Woolworth's problem!  It wasn't a private business problem!  *The problem was a Monopoly State problem.*  The obnoxious monopoly state arrogated to itself to decide who could and could not eat together, what businesses could and could not do.

And they're still doing that!

And they shouldn't!  It causes problems.  Big ones.  Small ones.  Unforeseen ones.  Unknown ones.

Everyone should (obviously) let everyone else do business with whomever they please.  The CRA doesn't do that.  The CRA makes certain businesses serve people they would rather not serve, involuntarily.  It mandates involuntary servitude.  It mandates slavery, JM.




> It's still possible for restaurants and hotels to openly discriminate based on race and not fall afoul of the CRA if they *really* want to.  (Hint.  Look up and *understand* the meaning of the term "public accommodation").


 You would have to change your entire business model to one that's probably non-viable.  And even then, I do not believe you would be safe.  Could Sam's Club or Costco decide tomorrow to ban all blacks?  No.




> It's really not worth the mental energy that you and others are putting into.


  I think it's an interesting issue to demonstrate the supremacy and importance of property rights.




> But I *freaking hate stupid arguments like the one John Stossel pushed and some idiots here picked up without thinking through!*  If I could I'd dump Stossel off a bridge for being so stupid.


 I think it's a wonderful analogy.  Now is it identical to the mandate it's mocking?  No.  But that's why they're _analogies_.  The lesson the analogy is teaching, by way of humor, is this: no one should be forced to serve anyone else.  Ever.  Based on any criteria.  Race, Klu-Klux-Klaniness, whatever.  

*No one should be forced to serve anyone else.*

I support this position. I oppose slavery.

----------


## satchelmcqueen

no

----------


## Carson

I sort of had a "no" vote cast way back at any business being able to refuse doing business any customer. 

When it happens to me again someday I hope we can just move on without getting into details why. I can't remember when but I'm sure it must have.

----------


## Paulbot99

Property rights are property rights. No.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

Now is this before or after the Klan decides to put the restaurant to the torch anyway?

----------


## jmdrake

> OK.
> 
> My position is, of course, that they shouldn't.  Do you agree?


My position is look at the root of the problem (Wickard v Filburn) rather than wasting energy on the leaves.




> It was essentially a non-issue in places with freedom on the issue.  As blacks in Alabama were protesting not being able to eat at Woolworth's, blacks in Chicago were sitting at Woolworth's eating sandwiches peacefully alongside the whites.


Blacks in Nashville had desegregated Woolworth's prior to the passage of the CRA as well.




> It wasn't a Woolworth's problem!  It wasn't a private business problem!  *The problem was a Monopoly State problem.*  The obnoxious monopoly state arrogated to itself to decide who could and could not eat together, what businesses could and could not do.


Wrong.  Prior state forced desegregation ended with Brown v. Board of Education.  So no Woolworth's in the country was being forced from 1954 on by the state to be segregated.  The force came from private organizations like the KKK and from public pressure.  Actually the benefit of the Civil Rights Act is that it gave cover to companies that wanted to desegregate but were afraid of the backlash from racist white consumers.  After the passage of the CRA they were able to somewhat honestly say "See!  We have to let blacks eat here."  Also if you think that Chicago was somehow less statist than Alabama you are deluding yourself.  Chicago was less *racist*.  The racist laws in Alabama were passed by the racism of the people of Alabama.  When those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court, segregation still existed by "color of law" because of the attitudes.  Direct action by civil rights leaders somewhat loosened those attitudes even before the CRA.




> And they're still doing that!
> 
> And they shouldn't!  It causes problems.  Big ones.  Small ones.  Unforeseen ones.  Unknown ones.
> 
> Everyone should (obviously) let everyone else do business with whomever they please.  The CRA doesn't do that.  The CRA makes certain businesses serve people they would rather not serve, involuntarily.  It mandates involuntary servitude.  It mandates slavery, JM.


If you believe that then you don't understand slavery and you don't understand the CRA.  In fact this last post shows your lack of understanding.  You need to seriously educate yourself before trying to convince anyone of anything.  Chicago was not free.  Anyone who wants to *today* could still not serve blacks and own a restaurant.  And a slave is not able to not serve someone by going out of business.  There are legitimate criticisms that can be made of the CRA but you aren't making them. 




> You would have to change your entire business model to one that's probably non-viable.  And even then, I do not believe you would be safe.  Could Sam's Club or Costco decide tomorrow to ban all blacks?  No.


A typical lunch counter could.  Ollies BBQ could have.  And if you don't know why I'm bringing up Ollie's BBQ than again that shows you don't know enough about the history of the CRA to comment on it.  Sam's and Costco didn't exist in 1964 and such a business would not be viable discriminating against blacks anyway because they would face too much pressure in the states where segregation was not socially acceptable.




> I think it's an interesting issue to demonstrate the supremacy and importance of property rights.


You are free to your own opinion.  I am free to mine.  




> I think it's a wonderful analogy.  Now is it identical to the mandate it's mocking?  No.  But that's why they're _analogies_.  The lesson the analogy is teaching, by way of humor, is this: no one should be forced to serve anyone else.  Ever.  Based on any criteria.  Race, Klu-Klux-Klaniness, whatever.


Really, think this through.  Say if you found out that the CIA barred people who were members of the KKK from being agents.  Would that bother you?  Because it wouldn't bother me.  Say if the CIA barred card carrying communists from being agents.  Would that bother you?  It wouldn't bother me.  How about if the CIA barred black people from being agents? That *should* bother you.  If you can see why the CIA should be allowed to bar communists and/or KKK members from being agents but shouldn't be able to bar people based on race, then you should understand why this analogy that you are stuck on stupid about doesn't work.




> *No one should be forced to serve anyone else.*


Again, nobody is.  




> I support this position. I oppose slavery.

----------


## jmdrake

> Now is this before or after the Klan decides to put the restaurant to the torch anyway?


That's just it.  The klan wasn't hurting black businesses that just served black people.  At least not unless they knew the black businessmen were supporting desegregation.  The klan was far more likely to torch a white business that served blacks.  Some of the people in this thread have no clue of the reality of life in the south during that era.  An ancestor of mine who was a foot specialists was put on a klan hit list because someone saw through his store window that he was working on a white woman's feet.  His friend that warned him about the threat was a member of the klan.  All of the politically powerful white people living in the area at the time were klansman.  Doing research on family history I read newspapers on the era.  The klan's meetings were advertised on the front page of the paper.  Does it really matter if your business is shut down by government forced segregation as opposed to private action by groups like the klan?  The Woolworth's of the world were *happy* to be "forced" to desegregate because they wanted to desegregate anyway because they wanted to make more money and dumb rednecks were getting in their way.  That's why the 1964 CRA passed.

----------


## jmdrake

> Relevant reading...*
> 
> 
> KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan*...
> 
> 
> 
> Continued - KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan


^That's funny.

----------


## DFF

A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

----------


## Southron

> Now is this before or after the Klan decides to put the restaurant to the torch anyway?


Did I miss a revival of the Klan? I bet they have more feds in the org than real members.

----------


## Dianne

NO .. No one should be forced to serve anyone ... If Obama came into my restaurant, I would tell him to f'k off.    That's my right,and I would be delighted to show it the door.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Relevant reading...*
> 
> 
> KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan*...
> 
> 
> 
> Continued - KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan

----------


## Natural Citizen

> 



That's a dangerously misleading article, though. Consider this which I'll share from it...




> To join the new non-discriminatory group, you need to be 18, live  in the Pacific Northwest, and want to fight against a "_new  world order_," which, according to Abarr, the US government  is trying to usher in.


Think about what they're painting there.

----------


## jbauer

The gay folks keep finding places that don't want to serve them. 




> Would a KKK member go to a black restaurant to begin with?

----------


## jmdrake

> The gay folks keep finding places that don't want to serve them.


And if you really want to make a cogent argument against the CRA ^this is the place to start.  I can't believe people are so stuck on the stupid KKK analogy.

----------


## brushfire

> That the very premise of this thread is irredeemably stupid.  I will sum up it's stupidity in two points.
> 
> 1) Membership in a private organization is not and never will be a "protected class".  If a white restaurant owner wanted to bar all member of the NAACP from his establishment he could without violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> 2) If blacks had to agree to let a klansman eat at a black owned restaurant in order to end segregation, public and private, most blacks would chose to let the klansman eat at the black restaurant.  I don't know what that's so freaking hard for people here at RPF to understand.
> 
> If you want to make headway with black people on the Civil Rights Act, come up with another example.  We really don't give a rats ass about whether or not a customer wears white sheets in his spare time.
> 
> 
> ...



I heard a similar story on "snapjudgement"  - A MUST LISTEN, IMO: https://soundcloud.com/snapjudgment/...ar-lounge-snap

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Did I miss a revival of the Klan? I bet they have more feds in the org than real members.


In that case, someone should tell Morris Dees and the SPLC. They need to remove the KKK from their list ...




> Membership in a private organization is not and never will be a "protected class".


Such memberships may not currently be "protected classes" - but I'm not at all certain that they never will be.

(When it comes to the insanities in which governments might indulge, "never say never" ...)

----------


## jmdrake

> Such memberships may not currently be "protected classes" - but I'm not at all certain that they never will be.
> 
> (When it comes to the insanities in which governments might indulge, "never say never" ...)


I would say never.  How would the FBI/MIAC be able to put patriot groups on terrorist lists if it simultaneously decided to make group membership a protected class?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I would say never.  How would the FBI/MIAC be able to put patriot groups on terrorist lists if it simultaneously decided to make group membership a protected class?


By making some group memberships a "protected class" - but not others ...

----------


## willwash

I voted yes, but here is the caveat:

It would force logical consistency in our current laws, which will awaken some people to their injustice.

----------


## acptulsa

> Did I miss a revival of the Klan? I bet they have more feds in the org than real members.


When did that become an either/or?

How quickly we've forgotten Robert Byrd...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

JM,

Thank you so much for your reply!  Let me try to explain myself a little more.  By the way, are you a libertarian?




> My position is look at the root of the problem (Wickard v Filburn) rather than wasting energy on the leaves.


 Well, everyone has a different idea of what is important and fundamental vs. what is trivia and relatively unimportant.  My own bias is that philosophical issues are more important.  Or, actually, just that they are more interesting and intellectually stimulating to talk about.  Which is my purpose for coming on this discussion forum.  I had to look up your court case.  Ah, the farmer who affected interstate commerce through not engaging in interstate commerce.  I was aware of this case through listening to countless Mises lectures, but did not even know the name of it.  Didn't care.  But you did.  See?  We have different ideas of what's important.  I say: "Who cares what the name of some old case where the black dresses tossed off yet another awful, nonsensical, and tyrannical verdict?  That's to be expected.  They have incentive to be awful."  You say: "You are so ignorant you don't even know the name of this court case, much less its details and intricacies.  I'm sure you've never read the court proceedings report! (guilty as charged).  You've also probably never read the Civil Rights Act. (guilty again).  Why, you're not qualified to have an opinion on this matter!"

So, different people have different ideas of what is important and indispensable to know in order to form a correct opinion on a matter.  Would you agree?

Also, it sounds like you would like the Civil Rights Act to be done away with, along with all such intrastate commerce regulation by the Ferals.  You'd like reverse the Wickard/Filburn decision, right?  Am I right about that?





> Blacks in Nashville had desegregated Woolworth's prior to the passage of the CRA as well.


 Great!  Again, it clearly was not a Woolworth's problem.  To the extent there was a problem, *it was a state problem.*  It's always a state problem.  That's kind of the default for all problems.  Is society experiencing a baffling problem?  Let's see if the monopoly state is somehow causing it.  Chances are, it is.  Otherwise, society tends to match people's preferences.  *When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state.*







> If you believe that then you don't understand slavery and you don't understand the CRA.


OK.  I will explain how I see it.  And then you can explain, logically, carefully, slowly, why I am wrong.  Is it a deal?  Here is how I see it:

1. Slavery is involuntary servitude.  Slavery encompasses more than just chattel slavery.  The military draft, for instance, is slavery.  The income tax is also slavery.

2. No one should be enslaved, that is, made to give in involuntary service.  Even very unpopular people in very unpopular groups, like businessmen.

3. The CRA forces certain businessmen running their business in certain ways to serve certain people, even if that is against their will.  They force businessmen to give service involuntarily.

4. Thus, the CRA implements slavery against businessmen.  Now you can say, "who cares about those money-grubbing businessmen, b-men -- bee-ggers, I call them.  Them bee-ggers ain't even human.  They're meant to serve us, their superiors, that's just the natural order of things.  They don't like it, they can stop being dirty bee-ggers."  But if you said that, I would disagree.  I oppose slavery, even against unpopular groups of people.

 If I have a business -- no matter what the business type, no matter how "open to the public" it is -- I have the right to serve, or to not serve, anyone I choose.

Does that all make sense?  Even if you disagree with it, please do go to the effort of making it make sense in your mind (or if you have any questions, please ask) and then, like I said, please slowly and logically explain exactly why I am wrong in my reasoning.  Because to me, you understand, the case seems awfully air-tight.




> In fact this last post shows your lack of understanding.  You need to seriously educate yourself before trying to convince anyone of anything.


  Certainly I lack a great deal of understanding.  I readily acknowledge this.  And I have no problem talking to you, my intellectual superior.  But perhaps it irritates _you_ to have to talk to inferiors like myself?




> Anyone who wants to *today* could still not serve blacks and own a restaurant.


 I do not think that is the case in the way I would like it to be the case.  People are not at liberty to open the Whites Only Drive-Through Hamburgertopia.  And I believe they should be.  My understanding of freedom is that forcing anyone to serve anyone else is antithetical to freedom.




> Really, think this through.  Say if you found out that Walmart barred people who were members of the KKK from being employees.  Would that bother you?  Because it wouldn't bother me.  Say if Walmart barred card carrying communists from being employees.  Would that bother you?  It wouldn't bother me.  How about if Walmart barred black people from being employees? That *should* bother you.


_I_ do not think it should.  And it most certainly _wouldn't_ bother me.  So you can say that I am wrong for not being bothered, that my botherment subsystem is out of order, but the fact remains that I am really and truly not bothered by such things.  Sorry!  I just believe people should be free to do whatever peaceful, voluntary things they want to do!  That's just me!  Sorry if that makes me wrong or broken.  But I really, really believe that and feel that.  If you show me with logic why I should not feel that way, then I can change my mind and feel differently.

----------


## Working Poor

> This is a great question to ask a liberal. Lol


I created a poll at my favorite liberal site and you can believe that the yeses are ahead. Here is the link in case anyone would like to read the comments:

http://lisafrequency.newsvine.com/_n...376-lastNewId1

----------


## Ronin Truth

Only if a white restaurant owner can be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers.

----------


## jmdrake

> By making some group memberships a "protected class" - but not others ...


Well considering that the KKK, for all its sliminess, is anti globalist, there's no way it would ever get to be a "protected class."

----------


## jmdrake

> I voted yes, but here is the caveat:
> 
> It would force logical consistency in our current laws, which will awaken some people to their injustice.


Again.  This argument itself lacks "logical consistency".  Answer this question.  Are you okay with the FBI barring known members of ISIS from becoming members?  Are you okay with the FBI banning Arabs from being members?  If the answer to both of those questions is the same then I question your sanity.  If the answer to the first is "yes" and the second is "no" then you should understand that your argument WRT the KKK and the CRA doesn't hold water.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

Should a white restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers?

Of course not, and this is why Rand Paul was exactly right for opposing the section of the Civil Rights Act that enforces this sort of thing.

----------


## jmdrake

> JM,
> 
> Thank you so much for your reply!  Let me try to explain myself a little more.  By the way, are you a libertarian?


No.  I refuse to wear that label because of stupid people like John Stossel.  Those pushing his idiocy help confirm why I would never want to be considered a libertarian.  I don't think Ron Paul would ever make a retarded argument like this.  I respect Ron Paul's position on the CRA though I don't totally agree with it.  But Ron Paul is not retarded.  John Stossel is.




> Well, everyone has a different idea of what is important and fundamental vs. what is trivia and relatively unimportant.  My own bias is that philosophical issues are more important.  Or, actually, just that they are more interesting and intellectually stimulating to talk about.  Which is my purpose for coming on this discussion forum.  I had to look up your court case.  Ah, the farmer who affected interstate commerce through not engaging in interstate commerce.  I was aware of this case through listening to countless Mises lectures, but did not even know the name of it.  Didn't care.  But you did.  See?  We have different ideas of what's important.  I say: "Who cares what the name of some old case where the black dresses tossed off yet another awful, nonsensical, and tyrannical verdict?  That's to be expected.  They have incentive to be awful."  You say: "You are so ignorant you don't even know the name of this court case, much less its details and intricacies.  I'm sure you've never read the court proceedings report! (guilty as charged).  You've also probably never read the Civil Rights Act. (guilty again).  Why, you're not qualified to have an opinion on this matter!"


You should have paid more attention to the Mises lecture.  It's not just because of the farmer and food issue.  *Wickard v. Filburn is the BASIS for almost all federal regulations that you don't like!*  Not understanding Wickard v. Filburn is like trying to support free markets and not understanding the Federal Reserve.  Wickard v. Filburn is the reason why Supreme Court Justice nominees can say things like this:




Wickard v. Filburn is why the U.S. Supreme Court claims the Federal Government can have national prohibition of marijuana and other drugs.




> So, different people have different ideas of what is important and indispensable to know in order to form a correct opinion on a matter.  Would you agree?


Have whatever opinion you want.  I really don't care.  But the KKK analogy is incompetent.  If you want to push it and look incompetent, go ahead.




> Also, it sounds like you would like the Civil Rights Act to be done away with, along with all such intrastate commerce regulation by the Ferals.  You'd like reverse the Wickard/Filburn decision, right?  Am I right about that?


Two different things.  I would like Wickard/Filburn overturned.  Technically parts of the CRA could stand without it.  That's because of the way the CRA is written.  Wickard v. Filburn addressed produce that didn't travel in interstate commerce but could arguably have some cumulative effect on interstate commerce.  The CRA only covers restaurants that are near interstate highways or use a substantial amount of food that traveled in interstate commerce.  The "near interstate highways" party couldn't stand without Wickard v. Filburn.  The "food that traveled in interstate commerce" portion arguably could.  The irony here is that a restaurant that was off the beaten path and that embraced the "buy local" movement could discriminate based on race and not violate the CRA.  So this is what I'm for.  Overturn Wickard v. Filburn and let the chips fall where the may on the CRA or anything else. I don't have this CRA obsession  you and others seem to have.




> Great!  Again, it clearly was not a Woolworth's problem.  To the extent there was a problem, *it was a state problem.*  It's always a state problem.  That's kind of the default for all problems.  Is society experiencing a baffling problem?  Let's see if the monopoly state is somehow causing it.  Chances are, it is.  Otherwise, society tends to match people's preferences.  *When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state.*


It was more than just a state problem.  If it was only a state problem then Woolworth would have automatically desegregated everywhere after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.  Woolworth didn't.  Why?  Because in the south they faced KKK violence if they desegregated coupled with potential loss of income from whites who wouldn't eat with blacks.  The black "sit ins" caused a change in the economic equilibrium.  The disruption of economic activity from those private acts of civil disobedience meant that trying to appease white customers who didn't want to eat with blacks just wasn't worth it.  Technically speaking the sit ins were as much a violation of the oh so sacred "property rights" as was the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  I've seen people here at RPF argue against them on that very basis.  So no, it's not just the "state monopoly" that was the problem.  It was the human condition.




> OK.  I will explain how I see it.  And then you can explain, logically, carefully, slowly, why I am wrong.  Is it a deal?  Here is how I see it:
> 
> 1. Slavery is involuntary servitude.  Slavery encompasses more than just chattel slavery.  The military draft, for instance, is slavery.  The income tax is also slavery.
> 
> 2. No one should be enslaved, that is, made to give in involuntary service.  Even very unpopular people in very unpopular groups, like businessmen.
> 
> 3. The CRA forces certain businessmen running their business in certain ways to serve certain people, even if that is against their will.  They force businessmen to give service involuntarily.
> 
> 4. Thus, the CRA implements slavery against businessmen.  Now you can say, "who cares about those money-grubbing businessmen, b-men -- bee-ggers, I call them.  Them bee-ggers ain't even human.  They're meant to serve us, their superiors, that's just the natural order of things.  They don't like it, they can stop being dirty bee-ggers."  But if you said that, I would disagree.  I oppose slavery, even against unpopular groups of people.
> ...


The military draft does not give you the option of simply not going.  So your own analogy destroys your own argument.  If you own a business and you don't want to serve certain people, you can go out of business.  But you also can avoid serving certain people and not violate the civil rights act by simply being careful where you buy your food from and where you are located.  As for the income tax, that's not slavery.  That's theft.  Money that you earn is taken from you without compensation.  Nobody is forcing you to work to earn it.  If the local mafia comes and shakes the hookers down for a cut of their action that's theft.  If the local mafia grabs women who don't want to be hookers and forces them to be hookers that's slavery.  So no.  Your "CRA = slavery" argument is not valid.




> Certainly I lack a great deal of understanding.  I readily acknowledge this.  And I have no problem talking to you, my intellectual superior.  But perhaps it irritates _you_ to have to talk to inferiors like myself?


It irritates me that some people feel I must accept what to me is an incompetent and offensive analogy in order to be considered a "libertarian".  So I reject the label.  It's irritating to me that *after 4 years* of this being discussed people still can't seem to understand that race != voluntary group membership.  It's irritating to me that you seem to want to force what I consider a stupid idea down my throat by resurrecting a dead thread and calling me out in it.  Those are my "irritations".




> I do not think that is the case in the way I would like it to be the case.  People are not at liberty to open the Whites Only Drive-Through Hamburgertopia.  And I believe they should be.  My understanding of freedom is that forcing anyone to serve anyone else is antithetical to freedom.


Do you want to open one?  If you do and you are willing to pay me the legal fees to explain to you how you can then let me know I'll draw up the paperwork for you.  I'll be happy to take your money so that you can do something stupid.  Now, if you want to open up a McDonald's or a Burger King you *still* have to draw up certain paperwork and follow certain regulations.  So...if your definition of "freedom" is "I should be able to do whatever I want without having to draw up the right papers"...well getting rid of the CRA won't make you "free".  And that's why I think this entire discussion is a stupid distraction.  You can't even open up a lemonade stand in most cities without a business license and *you* are concerned with whether or not you can open up a "whites only" one?  To me that's just stupid.  I want to reach out to the people that understand that stopping a kid from selling lemonade for 25 cents a cup because he hasn't paid of the state goons is dumb.  You give fodder to those who say "libertarians just want to be racist".  Fine.  We're at cross purposes.  You seek your definition of freedom, I'll seek mine, and I'll gladly *not* wear the libertarian label. 




> _I_ do not think it should.  And it most certainly _wouldn't_ bother me.  So you can say that I am wrong for not being bothered, that my botherment subsystem is out of order, but the fact remains that I am really and truly not bothered by such things.  Sorry!  I just believe people should be free to do whatever peaceful, voluntary things they want to do!  That's just me!  Sorry if that makes me wrong or broken.


I never said you should believe that people shouldn't be free to be racist.  That's different from being bothered that people *are* racist.  From what I understand libertarians believe that racism is another form of collectivism and is thus wrong.  Not everything that is wrong should be illegal.  But if you don't think that racism is wrong then maybe *you* are not libertarian.  But hey, I reject the libertarian label so you can do the same as well.

----------


## jmdrake

> Should a white restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers?
> 
> Of course not, and this is why Rand Paul was exactly right for opposing the section of the Civil Rights Act that enforces this sort of thing.


Except no part of the civil rights act enforces that sort of thing.    Why do people keep pushing the same false idea as if it is true?  Repeat 100 times.

The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
.......

----------


## jmdrake

> Only if a white restaurant owner can be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers.


Right.  And under the CRA as written they can't. They can't even be forced to serve members of the NAACP if their reason for denying admission to the restaurant is their membership in the NAACP.  This whole thread is one big red herring.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> Except no part of the civil rights act enforces that sort of thing.    Why do people keep pushing the same false idea as if it is true?  Repeat 100 times.
> 
> The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
> The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
> The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
> .......


But it does apply to businesses, which is what we're talking about.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No.  I refuse to wear that label because of stupid people like John Stossel.  Those pushing his idiocy help confirm why I would never want to be considered a libertarian.  I don't think Ron Paul would ever make a retarded argument like this.  I respect Ron Paul's position on the CRA though I don't totally agree with it.  But Ron Paul is not retarded.  John Stossel is.


 Well, we will have to disagree there.  Ron Paul, of course, is in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act.  As am I.  And as is John Stossel.  If you think even the people who agree with your views are retarded unless they use the exact same rhetoric and arguments that you would use in promoting those views, you have likely doomed yourself to living a life surrounded by retards. <shrug> 






> You should have paid more attention to the Mises lecture.  It's not just because of the farmer and food issue.  *Wickard v. Filburn is the BASIS for almost all federal regulations that you don't like!*


 I did, actually, understand that point of view.  Sorry I did not make my understanding more clear to you.  But that does not mean I agree with it.  I believe that actually it is the ideology of the people, and especially of the natural elites and opinions leaders, that is the basis for what the federal government does.




> Have whatever opinion you want.  I really don't care.  But the KKK analogy is incompetent.  If you want to push it and look incompetent, go ahead.


 Actually, my own preferred analogy (at least one of them) is to draw a parallel between the aggressive, violent enslavement that the civil rights act enacts with other enslavement.  I oppose all the enslavement.




> I don't have this CRA obsession  you and others seem to have.


 Do you also not have this 
police abuse obsession
monetary policy obsession
occupational licensure obsession
land tax obsession
aviation regulations obsession
zoning laws obsession
that I and others have?

It's all about freedom to me.  I'm in love with and passionate about freedom.  Obsession makes it sound like a bad, unhealthy thing, but laying aside that connotation: yes, I am obsessed with freedom!





> Great! Again, it clearly was not a Woolworth's problem. To the extent there was a problem, *it was a state problem*. It's always a state problem. That's kind of the default for all problems. Is society experiencing a baffling problem? Let's see if the monopoly state is somehow causing it. Chances are, it is. Otherwise, society tends to match people's preferences. *When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state.*
> 
> 
> It was more than just a state problem.  If it was only a state problem then Woolworth would have automatically desegregated everywhere after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.  Woolworth didn't.  Why?  Because in the south they faced KKK violence if they desegregated coupled with potential loss of income from whites who wouldn't eat with blacks.


 That doesn't sound like a problem to me.  As I explained, "*When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences*, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state."  Sounds to me like the people's preferences were being met.  You have just stated that there was a widespread, dominant preference in the south for whites and blacks to stay apart in many contexts.  That the market would succeed therefore in allowing whites and blacks to stay apart in these contexts is not surprising.  That is _success_ for the market, not a failure, not a problem.  The market succeeds when it allows people to be free to live their lives how they want to live it.  That includes "racist" white people, and also the "racist" black people who likewise preferred voluntary segregation.  Sorry! 

Now finally we get to the meat of what I was saying.  Let's see if you were able to carefully, logically, explain to me why I'm wrong.




> The military draft does not give you the option of simply not going.  So your own analogy destroys your own argument.  If you own a business and you don't want to serve certain people, you can go out of business.  But you also can avoid serving certain people and not violate the civil rights act by simply being careful where you buy your food from and where you are located.  As for the income tax, that's not slavery.  That's theft.  Money that you earn is taken from you without compensation.  Nobody is forcing you to work to earn it.  If the local mafia comes and shakes the hookers down for a cut of their action that's theft.  If the local mafia grabs women who don't want to be hookers and forces them to be hookers that's slavery.  So no.  Your "CRA = slavery" argument is not valid.


 OK, so you are contesting my point #1: Slavery is involuntary servitude.  You want slavery to mean something else.  I am unwilling to go along with your linguistic proposal, however.  Slavery _is_ involuntary servitude.  That's really what it means.

"Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others." -- Dictionary.com
"the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work" -- The British Dictionary
"forced submission to control by others" -- Wordnet, Princeton University
" a condition of submission to or domination by some influence, habit, etc."  Webster's New World College Dictionary
*"control of certain persons for the benefit of other persons, usually under the guise of social, mercantile, and technological progress."* -- Encyclopedia.com

So that is how I am using the term "slavery."  I am using it to encompass more than just chattel slavery.  I do understand that the income tax does not constitute chattel slavery, but it does constitute slavery, because the payer of it is laboring a certain percentage of his time for the benefit of another person or group which is not entitled to it by any legitimate contractual means, and he is doing so against his will.  "You could just not work at all!" is true, but does not negate the income tax's nature as slavery.  Just so, forcing a retail business to serve races the owner does not want to serve is slavery.  Or forcing him to serve gays.  Or forcing him to operate in any way which is not how they would choose to operate.  That is slavery and that is wrong and I am opposed to it.

If you find it offensive or baffling that I use the word slavery in this way, JM, feel free to substitute the words "involuntary service" in every instance and you will achieve a perfect translation of my meaning.




> It irritates me that some people feel I must accept what to me is an incompetent and offensive analogy in order to be considered a "libertarian".


  There may be someone who does that, but rest assured that I do not.  So if you are irritated with _me_: rejoice!  Your irritation can cease!  I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of the analogy, and the problems you have with it.  Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status.  It is completely different.  One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not.  I really do understand that.  I just want you to know that.

I just oppose all aggressive force.  Period.  That's why I come down on this issue the way I do.  Not because of some stretched analogy by John Stossel that is admittedly flawed.  Because the CRA initiates aggressive force.  Period.




> It's irritating to me that you seem to want to force what I consider a stupid idea down my throat by resurrecting a dead thread and calling me out in it.


 In looking at the thread in relation to animal rights and distributed micro-polities (a different post) I just also noticed myself writing many things to which you never replied and on which I was curious what you thought.

You still never have said whether you would support the total repeal of the civil rights act.  Or, perhaps a better and clearer way to put it: do you support the use of aggressive violence and threat of such to force _any_ business owners to serve blacks together with and equally to whites?  _Any_ business owners, regardless of where they buy their vegetables.




> So...if your definition of "freedom" is "I should be able to do whatever I want without having to draw up the right papers"...well getting rid of the CRA won't make you "free".


 No, indeed it won't.  Nor will eliminating zoning laws.  Nor pet licensure laws.  Nor the Import-export Bank.  Nor the National Endowment for the Arts.  But each one of those elinimations would be a little step forward.  Towards liberty.

To liberty, JM!  _To liberty!_

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, we will have to disagree there.  Ron Paul, of course, is in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act.  As am I.  And as is John Stossel.  If you think even the people who agree with your views are retarded unless they use the exact same rhetoric and arguments that you would use in promoting those views, you have likely doomed yourself to living a life surrounded by retards. <shrug>


I have yet to see Ron Paul use the KKK = race argument that you and Stossel are using.  The day Ron Paul says this I will realize he must be retarded too.




> I did, actually, understand that point of view.  Sorry I did not make my understanding more clear to you.  But that does not mean I agree with it.  I believe that actually it is the ideology of the people, and especially of the natural elites and opinions leaders, that is the basis for what the federal government does.


I'm talking legal basis.  I'm saying that that federal regulation of private business occurred before passage of the CRA and would still exist if the CRA was repealed.




> Actually, my own preferred analogy (at least one of them) is to draw a parallel between the aggressive, violent enslavement that the civil rights act enacts with other enslavement.  I oppose all the enslavement.


Prefer it all you want.  But KKK != race.  If you want to base your argument on an invalid analogy more power to you.  If you want to force me to accept your analogy as valid when I know that is isn't then you're wasting your time.




> Do you also not have this 
> police abuse obsession
> monetary policy obsession
> occupational licensure obsession
> land tax obsession
> aviation regulations obsession
> zoning laws obsession
> that I and others have?


Sure.  Which is why I'm *not* obsessing over the CRA.  Again federal regulation of private business occurred before passage of the CRA and would still exist if the CRA was repealed.  You're barking up the wrong tree.  Go right ahead and do that.  Just quit trying to enslave me to your position.  (Since you like to abuse the term "slave" so much.)  Most people are at least willing to listen to the "Let's get rid of police brutality" argument.  You'll find your "I'm so oppressed by the CRA" audience at Stormfront.




> It's all about freedom to me.  I'm in love with and passionate about freedom.  Obsession makes it sound like a bad, unhealthy thing, but laying aside that connotation: yes, I am obsessed with freedom!


Then spend the most energy on things that will gain you the most freedom and don't obsess over things that give you freedom to do what you don't want to do anyway.  Somewhere there is a law that says it's illegal to whistle under water.  That was in one of those "obsolete law" joke books.  Now frankly I think someone should the right to attempt to do that if they really want to.  But I'm not going to waste my energy trying to get such a law repealed.  If you want to fight to overturn laws barring people from whistling underwater go right ahead.  Just quit trying to force me to adopt your position.




> That doesn't sound like a problem to me.  As I explained, "*When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences*, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state."  Sounds to me like the people's preferences were being met.  You have just stated that there was a widespread, dominant preference in the south for whites and blacks to stay apart in many contexts.  That the market would succeed therefore in allowing whites and blacks to stay apart in these contexts is not surprising.  That is _success_ for the market, not a failure, not a problem.  The market succeeds when it allows people to be free to live their lives how they want to live it.  That includes "racist" white people, and also the "racist" black people who likewise preferred voluntary segregation.  Sorry!


The "market" was backed up by terrorist violence.  If you are okay with that "market success" then were are at cross purposes and Stormfront is a better audience for what you want to push.  "Sorry".

Edit: Note I'm not saying *you're* racist.  You may be, you may not be.  I don't care.  But at every point that Ron or Rand Paul talked about civil rights they always endorsed the ultimate outcome that we don't have widespread racial segregation today even if they disagreed with the way we got here.  If I thought for a minute that either of them were looking wistfully back at racial segregation as "the market working as it is supposed to" then I wouldn't be a part of this movement.




> Now finally we get to the meat of what I was saying.  Let's see if you were able to carefully, logically, explain to me why I'm wrong.
> 
>  OK, so you are contesting my point #1: Slavery is involuntary servitude.  You want slavery to mean something else.  I am unwilling to go along with your linguistic proposal, however.  Slavery _is_ involuntary servitude.  That's really what it means.


No.  I don't "want" slavery to mean anything other than what it actually means.  Being taxed is not involuntary servitude.  It is theft.  Involuntary servitude means that I can't quit the job even if I want to quit.  It does not mean that someone takes money that is due me.  Forced union dues is not involuntary servitude.  It is theft.  Mafia shakedowns of hookers is not involuntary servitude.  It is theft.  A mafia making a woman be a prostitute is involuntary servitude.  It is involuntary servitude even if the mafia lets the woman keep all of the money that she earns.  You do not understand what involuntary servitude means.  I have clearly explained that to you already.  




> If you find it offensive or baffling that I use the word slavery in this way, JM, feel free to substitute the words "involuntary service" in every instance and you will achieve a perfect translation of my meaning.


You don't understand what involuntary servitude is.  Switching around words to make the same false claims is no different.  Your "meaning" is based on a falsehood.




> I just oppose all aggressive force.  Period.


If that were true then you wouldn't be okay with the "market outcome" that was based in part on the aggressive force of the KKK.   




> You still never have said whether you would support the total repeal of the civil rights act.


I don't care.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I have yet to see Ron Paul use the KKK = race argument that you and Stossel are using.


 Would you please quote me where I used this argument?  Thanks! 




> Prefer it all you want.  But KKK != race.


  I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of Mr. Stossel's analogy, and the problems you have with it. Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status. It is completely different. One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not. I really do understand that. I just want you to know that.




> If you want to base your argument on an invalid analogy more power to you.


 Would you please quote me where I based an argument on Mr. Stossel's analogy?  Thanks! 




> still can't seem to understand that race != voluntary group membership.


 I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of Mr. Stossel's analogy, and the problems you have with it. Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status. It is completely different. One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not. I really do understand that. I just want you to know that.




> If you want to force me to accept your analogy as valid when I know that is isn't then you're wasting your time.


Would you please quote me where I attempted to make you accept his (not my!) analogy?  Thanks! 






> You'll find your "I'm so oppressed by the CRA" audience at Stormfront.


 Thanks!  I guess maybe you're right, the CRA just an irrelevant relic with no relevance today.  Is the SDA Church now ordaining gays, then?





> Just quit trying to force me to adopt your position.


 I am far from sure that you even have any idea what my position is on this!  If I were to try to get you to adopt my position, understanding what it is would be the necessary first step, and I have failed to convey that understanding.




> The "market" was backed up by terrorist violence.


 Which I oppose.  I oppose aggressive force, you see.  All of it.  Even if it's supposedly supposed to help black people.




> We don't have widespread racial segregation today


 This is demonstrably false.





> No.  I don't "want" slavery to mean anything other than what it actually means.


 Oh, good.




> Being taxed is not involuntary servitude.  It is theft.


 Being forced to pay an income tax is, in fact, involuntary servitude.  Paying someone is a service.  I don't want to do it; that makes it involuntary.  Involuntary + service = involuntary service.




> Involuntary servitude means that I can't quit the job even if I want to quit.


 Or that you must quit doing or start doing something else which you do not want to quit or start as a requirement for avoiding the servitude.  For example, someone who wants to work for their employer, but doesn't want to work for the government.  To avoid paying the income tax, one would have to stop serving their employer, whom they do not want to stop serving.




> Forced union dues is not involuntary servitude.  It is theft.


 It is the ongoing and unavoidable nature of the forced service that makes it not just a single incident of theft, but rather an ongoing enslavement.  Forced union dues certainly are a theft, just as you say, but they are an enslavement as well.




> I just oppose all aggressive force. Period.
> 			
> 		
> 
>  If that were true


I assure you that it _is_ true.  If you wish to show me some aggressive force somewhere that you think I do not oppose, please feel free to do so.  It is certainly very possible that I am being inconsistent in some way or have a blind spot somewhere -- we're all only human! -- but you have not shown me any such failing.

Regardless of what you want to call the ongoing aggressive force being used to force business owners to serve blacks, I oppose it.  Do you?  Or do you support the use of aggressive force on business owners to force them to serve blacks?  What say you, JMDrake?

----------


## osan

> Yes or no?
> 
> Feel free to argue your response in the thread.


Not a yes or no issue.  Answers depend upon full context.

That said, if white owners have to serve Black Panthers or some other raft of obnoxious sissies, then yes, the Klan must be served.  What is good for the goose, and all that.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Not a yes or no issue. Answers depend upon full context.


What part of "Should a restaurant owner be _forced_" requires any context at all?  Should we use force to compel people to stop their peaceful, voluntary behavior?  _Should we use force?_  That's really the only question.

I am sincerely shocked at your reply to this, osan.  I could probably quote 10 of your own posts at you that would seem to agree with my position: peaceful people must be left alone.  I thought you were a pure no-aggression 100%-freedom guy.

----------


## jmdrake

> Would you please quote me where I used this argument?  Thanks!


This whole thread is making that argument!  It replaces the word "black" with the word "KKK" as if they were synonymous.  If you reject Stossels stupidity then great!  There was no reason for you to resurrect this thread.  Thank you for wasting everybody's time with stupidity that you don't even (apparently) agree with.




> I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of Mr. Stossel's analogy, and the problems you have with it. Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status. It is completely different. One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not. I really do understand that. I just want you to know that.


Great.  Then this thread is a waste of time.  Glad you see that.




> Would you please quote me where I based an argument on Mr. Stossel's analogy?  Thanks!


Okay.  You're just wasting everybody's time.  I understand.  You're not stupid.  You're just trolling.  Thanks for clearing that up.




> I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of Mr. Stossel's analogy, and the problems you have with it. Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status. It is completely different. One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not. I really do understand that. I just want you to know that.


Okay.  You're just wasting everybody's time.  I understand.  You're not stupid.  You're just trolling.  Thanks for clearing that up.




> Would you please quote me where I attempted to make you accept his (not my!) analogy?  Thanks!


Okay.  You're just wasting everybody's time.  I understand.  You're not stupid.  You're just trolling.  Thanks for clearing that up.




> Thanks!  I guess maybe you're right, the CRA just an irrelevant relic with no relevance today.  Is the SDA Church now ordaining gays, then?


Nope.  The SDA church isn't ordaining women either.  That should tell you something as the CRA covers gender.  And the CRA wouldn't make the SDA church ordain blacks.  (SDAs were ordaining blacks shortly after the Civil War so for the record.)  Churches are not defined as "public accommodations" so the CRA as written doesn't cover them.  And if it did then it would still run up against the free exercise clause of the first amendment.  But you are at least getting warm as to a somewhat cogent argument against the CRA.  I hinted that there was one some posts back.  You're still not there though. 




> I am far from sure that you even have any idea what my position is on this!  If I were to try to get you to adopt my position, understanding what it is would be the necessary first step, and I have failed to convey that understanding.


You may be right.  I don't know.  My position throughout this thread has neither been pro nor against the CRA.  It's that 1) John Stossels analogy is a stupid embarrassment to the liberty movement and people should quit advancing it on that point alone and 2) if you want to beat back the incursion of the federal government into private business than deal with the root of the problem (abuse of the commerce clause) and argue about things normal people actually care about (i.e. medical marijuana or gun control).  You can actually find a constituency of people, liberals, conservatives, whatever, that chafe under federal regulation of *those* issues.  Arguing over the right to be racist just makes you look silly. If you want to look silly by yourself go ahead.  I have no intention of being part of that.




> Which I oppose.  I oppose aggressive force, you see.  All of it.  Even if it's supposedly supposed to help black people.


Are you opposed to the sit ins?  How about the snowballs thrown at Sean Hannity?  How about the Boston Tea Party?  Shame on those "aggressive colonists" throwing that perfectly good tea overboard!  Aggressive force used to counter aggressive force = self defense.  (Okay.  The snowballs at Hannity were just fun.  The snowballs thrown at the British Redcoats were revolutionary.)




> This is demonstrably false.


Then demonstrate.  Find me all of these white only stores you apparently think exist.  Show me the last time some well known celebrity got away with endorsing racial segregation.  Explain why the LA Clippers now have, or are about to have[1], a new owner.  Find me all of these white only neighborhoods that I can't move into even if I want to and have the money.  Maybe we have a different definition of "segregation" or a different definition of "widespread".

[1] Note I haven't kept up with the latest in the Don Sterling saga.




> Oh, good.
> 
>  Being forced to pay an income tax is, in fact, involuntary servitude.  Paying someone is a service.  I don't want to do it; that makes it involuntary.  Involuntary + service = involuntary service.


No it isn't.  When you are mugged you don't charge your mugger with enslaving you.  You charge him with theft.  Really, if you want to have the last word in this I'll let you.  I'm not going to keep correcting you over and over again.  A hooker being shaken down by the mafia has not been enslaved.  A woman forced to be a prostitute has been enslaved even if she is allowed to keep all over her money.  That's the last I will say on this.  But this back and for this silly.  It's like I say 2 + 2 = 4 and you say "No it equals 5" without any rhyme or reason.  If you can quit you are neither a slave nor an involuntary servant.





> Or that you must quit doing or start doing something else which you do not want to quit or start as a requirement for avoiding the servitude.  For example, someone who wants to work for their employer, but doesn't want to work for the government.  To avoid paying the income tax, one would have to stop serving their employer, whom they do not want to stop serving.


Wrong.  If you are a slave, if you are in involuntary servitude *YOU CAN'T QUIT!*  That's the *definition* of involuntary servitude. A chattel slave is the property of another.  If you are someone else's property you can't decide "I just don't want to work anymore".  You gave the military draft as an example.  Someone who is drafted into the military just can't "quit".




> It is the ongoing and unavoidable nature of the forced service that makes it not just a single incident of theft, but rather an ongoing enslavement.  Forced union dues certainly are a theft, just as you say, but they are an enslavement as well.


Nope.




> I assure you that it _is_ true.


I can assure you that it isn't and that I place little value in your assurance of what is true.




> Regardless of what you want to call the ongoing aggressive force being used to force business owners to serve blacks, I oppose it.  Do you?  Or do you support the use of aggressive force on business owners to force them to serve blacks?  What say you, JMDrake?


Like I said.  I don't care.  I don't know how many times have to say that until you get it.  But I won't say it again.  You've already admitted that you were trolling in this thread.  You're not even supporting Stossel's position so there was no need to bump it.  So tell everybody once again that theft = slavery when it doesn't.  I don't care.  Last word = yours.  Stupid zombie thread can die.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Great.  Then this thread is a waste of time.


*Sometimes a thread can transcend its original purpose.*  If, that is, the participants are truly seeking for mutual understanding.




> Clearly your statistics prove your point....whatever your point is.


I know that sometimes the points I'm making can be strange.  Hard to understand.  I do know that.  I'm sorry, that's just me.  I do _try_ to be comprehensible!

Did you want me to answer or address any of the questions or points you directed at me in your last post?

----------


## osan

> What part of "Should a restaurant owner be _forced_" requires any context at all?  Should we use force to compel people to stop their peaceful, voluntary behavior?  _Should we use force?_  That's really the only question.
> 
> I am sincerely shocked at your reply to this, osan.  I could probably quote 10 of your own posts at you that would seem to agree with my position: peaceful people must be left alone.  I thought you were a pure no-aggression 100%-freedom guy.


You are cherry picking.

I wrote that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  What that should say to you is that IF (big word there, semantically speaking) we are going to force one set to serve, then we must force all others.  That is how the question in the OP was posed.

Now, if you are asking in universal terms, the answer for me is an unequivocal "no".  But that is not what was asked, therefore I answered as I did.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You are cherry picking.


 Not trying to!  You posted four sentences, I replied to two.




> What that should say to you is that IF (big word there, semantically speaking) we are going to force one set to serve, then we must force all others.


 I don't see why.  Less force would be better.




> That is how the question in the OP was posed.


 I just went back and read the OP.  I'm not seeing it.




> Now, if you are asking in universal terms, the answer for me is an unequivocal "no".


Cool, that's what I thought.  _That's_ the osan I know!  Me too.  Just Say No!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The military draft does not give you the option of simply not going. So your own analogy destroys your own argument. If you own a business and you don't want to serve certain people, you can go out of business. But you also can avoid serving certain people and not violate the civil rights act by simply being careful where you buy your food from and where you are located.


You could grow your own food, presumably?

----------


## osan

> Not trying to!  You posted four sentences, I replied to two.


The sentences in question stand on their own




> I don't see why.  Less force would be better.


You cannot be serious.  Then you are in favor of jim crow, effectively speaking.  The issue here is EQUAL PROTECTION under law.  If I'm forced to serve some group I do not wish to, then by God you'd damned better be forced to serve those whom you'd rather not.

Can you say HYPOCRISY?  

Oy...




> I just went back and read the OP.  I'm not seeing it.


Then you are in dire need of glasses.  It is right there in black and white.  But let me not be accused of evasion.  To wit:




> if white owners have to serve Black Panthers ...  then... the Klan must be served. What is good for the goose, and all that.


This is about equality of APPLICATION of law.  If force is valid against Group A for non-criminal choices made, then it is valid for Group B.  What you imply is that asymmetric application is valid.  It is not.  The argument that it is underpins nonsense such as "affirmative action", and it reeks.




> Cool, that's what I thought.  _That's_ the osan I know!  Me too.  Just Say No!


Sure, to all of it.  We either force everybody, or we force nobody.

I do not see how this is not glaringly apparent.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Therein lies the problem. They should be taken as a semantic gestalt. That is cherry picking... regardless of whether intentional.


 Well, no reason to be offended!  I meant no harm.




> You cannot be serious.


 And yet, I am!   




> Then you are in favor of jim crow, effectively speaking.


I do not know what that means.  If you mean being in favor of the monopoly state decreeing restrictions regarding how people may act and associate with regard to race, let me assure you I am not in favor of that.  "Effectively speaking," or otherwise.




> The issue here is EQUAL PROTECTION under law.  If I'm forced to serve some group I do not wish to, then you'd better be forced to serve those whom you'd rather not.


 Aha, this is totally incorrect!  If a law is immoral and wrong, then it ought to be applied to as few people as possible.  Having a law forcing 10 people into involuntary servitude is better than having one that forces 20 people to serve.  Even better would be 5.  Even worse would be 1000.  When it comes to aggressive, disgusting, illegitimate laws such as the 1968 so-called "Civil Rights Act" of the United States, we are not discussing equal _protection_, but rather equal _aggression!_  Being equally applied to everyone in no way morally improves aggression.  Better that it affect fewer people, even if that means its application is capricious and nonsensical.  Aggression is nonsensical anyway.




> That is how the question in the OP was posed.
> 			
> 		
> 
> I just went back and read the OP. I'm not seeing it.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Then you are in dire need of glasses.  It is right there in black and white.


 There appears to be some confusion.  Let me make sure we are on the same page.  "OP" stands for "Opening Post."  You know that, right?  Here is the OP, as low preference guy (rest in peace) wrote it:

*Subject: Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Ku Klux Klan?

Body: Yes or no?

Feel free to argue your response in the thread.*

There it is.  Nothing about Panthers or ganders or geese or any other barnyard creatures.  It's pretty clear.  That's why the first several responses are all a simple "no."  The right answer is obvious to libertarians.




> This is about equality of APPLICATION of law.  If force is valid against Group A for non-criminal choices made, then it is valid for Group B.  What you imply is that asymmetric application is valid.  It is not.  The argument that it is underpins nonsense such as "affirmative action", and it reeks.


 Yes, asymmetric application is _absolutely_ preferable if it decreases the quantity of application.

Fairness and equality under the law are not really important libertarian values.  The important libertarian value is: keep your hands to yourself!  That's the _only_ libertarian value.  There's only one of them.  Fairness and equality don't play into it at all, except by accident: because our first (and only!) value applies rigorously and universally, you could say that we must keep our hands "equally" off of everyone.  Anyway, so fairness and equality don't matter.  If we can move further towards liberty by decreasing the amount of fairness and equality in the world, that's fantastic!  I will _take_ that deal!

SEZs (special economic zones), for example, are not fair.  They're also known as free trade zones.  They're special cities or areas where the government says "OK, a lot of our tariffs and taxes and rules and regulations are going to not apply here."  There's even a bunch in the United States! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_tr...#United_States  They're not fair at all.  Why should _I_ have to follow the rules if those coddled Port Lansing people don't?!?  Ergh!  But they're great.  Better a free trade zone than no free trade zone.




> We either force everybody, or we force nobody.


 I totally disagree!  You are leaving out a whole range of options that exist in reality.  Forcing _fewer_ is superior to forcing _more_.  Forcing nobody is, I don't have to tell you, best of all.





> I do not see how this is not glaringly apparent.


 It is, to the contrary, glaringly _wrong!_

----------

