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.
And that third party willingly places himself in harm's way by doing so.
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.
How is that an attack? You need to get a dictionary.
If you have a minority, they inherently no not have the ability to change the laws of their locality.
Forget that you're jumping all over the place in terms of your... "logic:; what you claim is not necessarily true. This hypothetical town, we can call it "Klanville", s populated by people who have rights equal to that of anyone else. If they do not wish to do business with negroes, that is their choice. It may not be pretty, but it is still a fact. Mr. Negro is not entitled to be served by anyone who wishes not to do business with him, regardless of the reasons for it. While this may be objectionable to many, the facts stand. Either we have rights or we do not. If, perchance, all business in Klanville was done on a strictly personal basis - no stores or markets of any sort - what then? Force Johnny Crackerboy to sell his tomatoes to Mr. Negro? The premise is preposterous and wholly unsupportable.
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?
Perhaps such people are better served not moving to Klanville, just as Johnny Crackerboy is better served in not moving to Panthertown. You cannot force people to like each other or want to do business with each other.
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.
Them's the breaks. Freedom can be a real bitch at times.
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.
Forgetting the utterly ridiculous nature of this scenario, the answer is simple: this is not a place for such a person to live happily. Move elsewhere.
Is there really no provision in our constitution that would protect minorities from this type of discrimination?
That would be affirmative. No such provision. Go online and try reading the Constitution and you will find that it is indeed the case. Don't just read, endeavor to properly understand.
[/quote]I cannot get my head around why that should be allowed in our society.[/quote]
Then you do not understand what it means to be a free man. You are probably an advocate for pretty slavery - probably not even aware of it, too, which would be the truly sad part.
Obviously, underlying my distress is a belief that no man is any less equal because of their skin color.
On this you are correct, which cuts both ways. Whitey is equally endowed with his rights and if he or anyone of any persuasion is not in the mood to trade with someone of a particular persuasion, it is their right not to.
You need to read the essay at the URL in my signature. You need is BADLY. If you are open minded, reasonable, and honest, there is then hope for you.
How can you hold both private property rights and the rights of free men to pursue happiness, in this sort of situation?
How can you not?
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).
Your understanding of these issues is poor in the extreme. The good news for you is that this can be corrected. Conflating private property rights with the Indian caste system is simply bizarre. The one has nothing to do with the other, the latter being a legally institutionalized system of oppression, the former being a system where freedom of choice will at times produce results some people do not like. Life is tough at times. Get over it.
