Cannot square my sense of right and wrong with an Anti-Civil Rights Act position

[BrendenR]

Here's is what I am struggling with:

I do not believe in the application of force, in most cases.

I do believe in the application of force to stop an attack, however.

If two people are in a fight, sometimes it takes third party to step in and get in the middle, help the two sides to calm down, shake hands, and make up.

Lets take the case of minorities being "attacked" by a majority due to their skin color by being excluded from all private businesses in some area.

If you have a minority, they inherently no not have the ability to change the laws of their locality. If we say the federal government also has no power to change this due to private property rights, what is the minority left to do? To move? Grow their own food and build their own furniture and so on?

You could say, well, *someone* will open up a grocery/furniture/pharmacy establishment that allows the minority in. But that is in no way guaranteed.

So lets assume the minority has no access to any private business at all in their locality, and does not have the ability to move, and lets say they are alone, the only one. They can't get a job, they can't buy food, and so on.

Is there really no provision in our constitution that would protect minorities from this type of discrimination?

I cannot get my head around why that should be allowed in our society.

Obviously, underlying my distress is a belief that no man is any less equal because of their skin color.

Others may not hold that view (racism).

How can you hold both private property rights and the rights of free men to pursue happiness, in this sort of situation?

I understand that it is the "worst case" scenario, but I think it brings to the fore the underlying issues (and it reminds me of the caste system in India).

 

[hotbrownsauce]

First off, no one is going to be forced to live in one area unable to work or eat. If they were forced to live in one area they are under oppression.

It seems like what your asking is, "How can someone not be burning if they are on fire?"Of course in this scenario it's a conundrum. They can't be on fire and not be burning... it's sort of like dividing by zero. You can't do it.

The constitution grants the Federal Governments powers. Read the constitution and you tell me where it says the Federal Government has power to do as you say.

If we lived in a society where someone couldn't move, find jobs, own land, have property, and no one had morals to help someone without those things then we would be living in chaos. It's a great thing humans have compassion.

Your questions is an unrealistic hypothetical seemingly designed to entrap someone into a no win situation in order to prove the implicit thesis of your argument. I believe that the limits you placed in your argument are unrealistic and because of that there is no logical explanation or reconciliation to be had.

Should your argument be taken seriously there are thousands upon thousands of externalities that would influence the possibilities of what a response would be.

 

[Sola_Fide]

So you think a black-owned restaraunt should be FORCED to serve lunch to a convention of Ku Klux Klan members who are hurling racial epithets at them?

That is ridiculously oppressive. This is the problem with government interference in the free decisions of people...it can never strike a perfect balance between what is "right" in a person's conscience and what is "right" to his pocketbook. Only the free market can do that.

 

[FrankRep]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason)


Tom Woods.com
May 21st, 2010


In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?

Thomas Sowell

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/06...=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0688062695

Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.

“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.”

Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).


SOURCE:
http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/th...pressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/

 

[FrankRep]

Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was UnConstitutional, Statist, and a Failure


Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.

http://www.mises.org/

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Here's is what I am struggling with:

I do not believe in the application of force, in most cases.

I do believe in the application of force to stop an attack, however.

If two people are in a fight, sometimes it takes third party to step in and get in the middle, help the two sides to calm down, shake hands, and make up.

Lets take the case of minorities being "attacked" by a majority due to their skin color by being excluded from all private businesses in some area.

If you have a minority, they inherently no not have the ability to change the laws of their locality. If we say the federal government also has no power to change this due to private property rights, what is the minority left to do? To move? Grow their own food and build their own furniture and so on?

You could say, well, *someone* will open up a grocery/furniture/pharmacy establishment that allows the minority in. But that is in no way guaranteed.

So lets assume the minority has no access to any private business at all in their locality, and does not have the ability to move, and lets say they are alone, the only one. They can't get a job, they can't buy food, and so on.

Is there really no provision in our constitution that would protect minorities from this type of discrimination?

I cannot get my head around why that should be allowed in our society.

Obviously, underlying my distress is a belief that no man is any less equal because of their skin color.

Others may not hold that view (racism).

How can you hold both private property rights and the rights of free men to pursue happiness, in this sort of situation?

I understand that it is the "worst case" scenario, but I think it brings to the fore the underlying issues (and it reminds me of the caste system in India).

You must choose to be light or darkness. I read your post and I get the impression you know deep down what is right but fear of _______ prevents you from openly acting on what you know is right.

The OP leads me to believe you feel it is wrong to use force against people who discriminate.
The OP leads me to believe you feel it is wrong for people to discriminate.

Discrimination is not based on love. That said, discrimination is the only peaceful tool of anger available to free people. Do you want to live in a world where all forms of anger must lead to slavery (submission) or violence because discrimination is outlawed?

This is my advice:

1. Give testament to truth regardless of the consequences.
2. Be plentiful with your help or charity.

If you have any success with that please come back and tell me because I can always use more inspiration when it comes to being a better person.

 

[newbitech]

You could say, well, *someone* will open up a grocery/furniture/pharmacy establishment that allows the minority in. But that is in no way guaranteed.

So lets assume the minority has no access to any private business at all in their locality, and does not have the ability to move, and lets say they are alone, the only one. They can't get a job, they can't buy food, and so on.

Does the minority have no access, no ability, and can't do these things because someone is forcefully stopping them? Cause otherwise, they can grow food and raise chicken and survive. If they cannot grow their own food, and cannot buy their own food, and cannot move to a place where these things are possible, then that person will be dead. Well obviously, that person went from a state of being able to eat, to not being able to eat. How did that happen? Cause either it was their own fault for not taking care of themselves, OR there is something about that situation you described that you are not telling us.

 

[BrendenR]

Thanks for the links to the articles/videos, I will read/watch them shortly.

First off, no one is going to be forced to live in one area unable to work or eat. If they were forced to live in one area they are under oppression.

Of course they cannot be forced to live in an area, but in this case they have no option. They are an outcast (for no reason other than their skin color). They cannot buy a bus ticket. They can start walking west, but that might be the pacific ocean. And the Grand Canyon might be to the east. And so on. No one is forcing this person to stay there, it is just not possible for them to move.

Perhaps I am making the scenario to detached from reality to be constructive, but being unable to move does seem like a reasonable scenario to me.

If we lived in a society where someone couldn't move, find jobs, own land, have property, and no one had morals to help someone without those things then we would be living in chaos. It's a great thing humans have compassion.

No, we wouldn't. We'd all be getting along fine, and this one person would be destitute.

Your point about compassion is well taken, however, and I realize this may be an unrealistic scenario.

All of my belief in the libertarian philosophy and the rights of people are founded on the rights of the individual. Nowhere in that system, except for this case that I have presented, have I found the need for human emotion (compassion) to solve injustice.

We do not rely on empathy and compassion to combat violence, why should we rely on empathy and compassion to combat less direct forms of violence?

Let me give another example.

With a foundation in property rights, you have no right to hit me (use force or violence) against me. What if we learned that being called "nigger" all the time caused permanent mental damage to blacks in south. I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was the case. Free speech then does not jive with personal property rights, but it is still protected under our constitution.

In the same way, I don't believe personal property rights should allow you to discriminate purely on the basis of skin color, and the right to be a patron of a business that is open to the public regardless of skin color should be protected, just as your right to speak free speech is protected.

Private property cannot be the ultimate right that trumps all other rights in every case, or you can end up with horrible scenarios where people can be oppressed because the property around them is private, and they therefore have no rights.

The right to life is enshrined in the Constitution and it trumps the right of private property, assuming I am there peacefully. Imagine I walk onto your lawn, sit down, and start meditating. You have no right to kill me, you would and should be put in jail.

The constitution grants the Federal Governments powers. Read the constitution and you tell me where it says the Federal Government has power to do as you say.

Never said it does. I'm philosophizing that the explicit protection of minorities from discrimination due to natural traits (ie skin color) may be something that our Constitution should have.

Does the minority have no access, no ability, and can't do these things because someone is forcefully stopping them?

Yes, they can't buy the farm equipment, they can't buy the land to grow the food, etc. etc.


At the risk of being redundant,

IN SUMMARY: All I'm saying is that a right to not be discriminated against, in a very limited sense (including only benign traits like skin color, over which a person has no choice), should exist just as the right to speak freely, or the right to life, and that this right should trump property rights in *some cases*, just as the right to life trumps private property rights, in some cases. And that this could jive with a free society. In fact, increase freedom.

Please don't hate me , I'm with RP on 99% of issues, I'm just having a problem with this one.

 

[hotbrownsauce]

(This post could drive a debate about wrong versus right and would quickly turn into a philosophy class debate.)

In general a person shouldn't be outcast like you propose. Should someone be exposed to this destitute existence from our point of view looking in we would be in a moral quagmire. From the inside those people would not see any wrong. One would have to question, would that person see any wrong themselves?

If this person was stuck and no one was to help and no one cared then there wouldn't be a problem for anyone but the person stuck. There would be nothing that person could do except maybe become an outlaw in the eyes of that society just trying to survive or just keel over and die.

If the person had our type of beliefs they would practice free speech in the hopes to change the minds of people.

Is there really no provision in our constitution that would protect minorities from this type of discrimination?

The government was not delegated with the powers of morality since government is incapable of being moral.

I cannot get my head around why that should be allowed in our society.

Blame should not be on a forceful government hungry for power incapable of compassion. It should be on the people who stare on quietly and do nothing.

Obviously, underlying my distress is a belief that no man is any less equal because of their skin color.

As bad as things can be, government almost always consistently makes them worse. Government should ALWAYS be considered as the last answer if an answer is to be had at all.

How can you hold both private property rights and the rights of free men to pursue happiness, in this sort of situation?

If we were there we would have compassion and make a change for this person. If we weren't there we could do nothing and your question would be moot because no one in that world would have a moral to care. This person would have to fight peaceably for compassion and a chance to be equal. Becoming a destructive derelict would not advance their cause. Should those cries be ignored then what ever that person does wouldn't make a difference and what we would profess wouldn't matter. However one could argue that person could try to gain power through force and become a tyrant themselves.

I feel I'm starting to ramble. To your question, there is no right answer. Someone will lose if there are no moral compassionate people.

 

[AlexMerced]

You don't have to be anti the CRA act to be critical of it, listen to this video, it should clear up your conflict

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f9fiGxRtC8&p=41CFF669E92BD258

 

[low preference guy]

IN SUMMARY: All I'm saying is that a right to not be discriminated against, in a very limited sense (including only benign traits like skin color, over which a person has no choice), should exist just as the right to speak freely, or the right to life, and that this right should trump property rights in *some cases*, just as the right to life trumps private property rights, in some cases. And that this could jive with a free society. In fact, increase freedom.

Why do you want to force minorities to help people who hate them?

Suppose you're mexican. When you go to a restaurant, you help the owner. You give him money. In an economic transaction both parts usually benefit (that's why they choose to transact).

If discrimination is legal, he might show a sign that says "No Mexicans". The individual then will know who not to help with their hard-earned dollars.

But if discrimination is illegal, you can't even know who is a bigot. You're effectively forcing minorities to help the business of people who hate them, as you take away from them one way to determine who deserves their support or doesn't.

Plus, suppose an owner is forced to serve someone he hates. Will the service be good? Would he spit in his food? Would he treat him nicely?

This is what discrimination laws do to minorities:

1. Forcing them to support people who hate them.
2. Denying them the opportunity to avoid places that are likely to provide them with an awful/humiliating service.

 

[BrendenR]

You don't have to be anti the CRA act to be critical of it, listen to this video, it should clear up your conflict

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f9fiGxRtC8&p=41CFF669E92BD258

Alex, this video is great, thanks so much!

 

[BrendenR]

You don't have to be anti the CRA act to be critical of it, listen to this video, it should clear up your conflict

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f9fiGxRtC8&p=41CFF669E92BD258

Alex, this video is great, thanks so much!

 

[BlackTerrel]

First off, no one is going to be forced to live in one area unable to work or eat. If they were forced to live in one area they are under oppression.

It seems like what your asking is, "How can someone not be burning if they are on fire?"Of course in this scenario it's a conundrum. They can't be on fire and not be burning... it's sort of like dividing by zero. You can't do it.

The constitution grants the Federal Governments powers. Read the constitution and you tell me where it says the Federal Government has power to do as you say.

If we lived in a society where someone couldn't move, find jobs, own land, have property, and no one had morals to help someone without those things then we would be living in chaos. It's a great thing humans have compassion.

The constitution allowed some people to own other people and those people who were owned couldn't move, or find jobs, or own land.

 

[hotbrownsauce]

The constitution allowed some people to own other people and those people who were owned couldn't move, or find jobs, or own land.

True.

Slowly but surely peoples morals were changing that.

I don't defend slavery. I don't deny its tyranny. I don't endorse government enforcing "equality" for special groups. In the situation described it is stacked as an unwinnable scenario. And without knowing the many externalities to such a situation commenting is not very quaint. Beyond that dealing with hyperbole is a distraction from realistic scenarios. Hyperbole may be addressed but it would need a lot of explanations that would take hours, especially typing. If someone else wants to take on that challenge be my guest! =)

 

[BrendenR]

True.

Slowly but surely peoples morals were changing that.

I don't defend slavery. I don't deny its tyranny. I don't endorse government enforcing "equality" for special groups. In the situation described it is stacked as an unwinnable scenario. And without knowing the many externalities to such a situation commenting is not very quaint. Beyond that dealing with hyperbole is a distraction from realistic scenarios. Hyperbole may be addressed but it would need a lot of explanations that would take hours, especially typing. If someone else wants to take on that challenge be my guest! =)

When I wrote up my original post, I was sort of working under the assumption that compulsory discrimination laws could be put on the books. Alex helped to clear up my concern here with his video, which explains that the compulsory discrimination is a violation of someone's liberty, and therefore the government has the right to interfere in the situation.

Compulsory discrimination is the only situation I can think of in which my original scenario could realistically take place. So I accept that as long as compulsory discrimination is illegal, compulsory non-discrimination is not an issue.

From Wikipedia.

The Supreme Court of the United States held in the Civil Rights Cases 109 US 3 (1883) that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give the federal government the power to outlaw private discrimination, and then held in Plessy v. Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896) that Jim Crow laws were constitutional as long as they allowed for "separate but equal" facilities. In the years that followed, the court made this "separate but equal" requirement a hollow phrase by upholding discriminatory laws in the face of evidence of profound inequalities in practice.

 

[Acala]

the market

Here are a couple questions to think about:

If the white majority in the Southern US hated blacks so much, why did the KKK have to terrorize business owners to keep them from serving blacks equally?

If the South African whites hated blacks so much, why was it necessary to have the apartheid laws keep blacks and whites from integrating?

Answer: because a free market ultimately punishes ignorant, hostile, and arbitrary conduct. In other words, the free market gently pushes people toward voluntary integration and only the use of force - like government or the KKK - can keep it from happening in the long run.

Another question:

If you wanted to perpetuate animosity between two groups of people, what better way than to force them to associate with each other against their will, perpetually tell one group that all their problems are due to the other group, give special legal privileges to one group over the other, and then slowly erode the prosperity, freedom, and opportunity of both groups?

That's US race relations policy.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Here are a couple questions to think about:

If the white majority in the Southern US hated blacks so much, why did the KKK have to terrorize business owners to keep them from serving blacks equally?

If the South African whites hated blacks so much, why was it necessary to have the apartheid laws keep blacks and whites from integrating?

Answer: because a free market ultimately punishes ignorant, hostile, and arbitrary conduct. In other words, the free market gently pushes people toward voluntary integration and only the use of force - like government or the KKK - can keep it from happening in the long run.

Another question:

If you wanted to perpetuate animosity between two groups of people, what better way than to force them to associate with each other against their will, perpetually tell one group that all their problems are due to the other group, give special legal privileges to one group over the other, and then slowly erode the prosperity, freedom, and opportunity of both groups?

That's US race relations policy.

Exactly. It is the market that provides the condition for peaceful integration, because we must serve eachother to survive, whereas the government provides the condition for force, seperation, and animosity.

 

[virgil47]

Thanks for the links to the articles/videos, I will read/watch them shortly.



Of course they cannot be forced to live in an area, but in this case they have no option. They are an outcast (for no reason other than their skin color). They cannot buy a bus ticket. They can start walking west, but that might be the pacific ocean. And the Grand Canyon might be to the east. And so on. No one is forcing this person to stay there, it is just not possible for them to move.

Perhaps I am making the scenario to detached from reality to be constructive, but being unable to move does seem like a reasonable scenario to me.



No, we wouldn't. We'd all be getting along fine, and this one person would be destitute.

Your point about compassion is well taken, however, and I realize this may be an unrealistic scenario.

All of my belief in the libertarian philosophy and the rights of people are founded on the rights of the individual. Nowhere in that system, except for this case that I have presented, have I found the need for human emotion (compassion) to solve injustice.

We do not rely on empathy and compassion to combat violence, why should we rely on empathy and compassion to combat less direct forms of violence?

Let me give another example.

With a foundation in property rights, you have no right to hit me (use force or violence) against me. What if we learned that being called "nigger" all the time caused permanent mental damage to blacks in south. I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was the case. Free speech then does not jive with personal property rights, but it is still protected under our constitution.

In the same way, I don't believe personal property rights should allow you to discriminate purely on the basis of skin color, and the right to be a patron of a business that is open to the public regardless of skin color should be protected, just as your right to speak free speech is protected.

Private property cannot be the ultimate right that trumps all other rights in every case, or you can end up with horrible scenarios where people can be oppressed because the property around them is private, and they therefore have no rights.

The right to life is enshrined in the Constitution and it trumps the right of private property, assuming I am there peacefully. Imagine I walk onto your lawn, sit down, and start meditating. You have no right to kill me, you would and should be put in jail.



Never said it does. I'm philosophizing that the explicit protection of minorities from discrimination due to natural traits (ie skin color) may be something that our Constitution should have.



Yes, they can't buy the farm equipment, they can't buy the land to grow the food, etc. etc.


At the risk of being redundant,

IN SUMMARY: All I'm saying is that a right to not be discriminated against, in a very limited sense (including only benign traits like skin color, over which a person has no choice), should exist just as the right to speak freely, or the right to life, and that this right should trump property rights in *some cases*, just as the right to life trumps private property rights, in some cases. And that this could jive with a free society. In fact, increase freedom.

Please don't hate me , I'm with RP on 99% of issues, I'm just having a problem with this one.

You have put them in a box and claim there is no outlet and nothing outside of the box. In reality you are describing slaves.

 

[BlackTerrel]

True.

Slowly but surely peoples morals were changing that.

I don't defend slavery. I don't deny its tyranny. I don't endorse government enforcing "equality" for special groups. In the situation described it is stacked as an unwinnable scenario. And without knowing the many externalities to such a situation commenting is not very quaint. Beyond that dealing with hyperbole is a distraction from realistic scenarios. Hyperbole may be addressed but it would need a lot of explanations that would take hours, especially typing. If someone else wants to take on that challenge be my guest! =)

I'm with you for the most part. I guess where I disagree is those who think the constitution is this perfect document and no injustices can occur if we return to it. Clearly that wasn't the case when it was written.