Do you Believe There Would be Huge Consequences to Repealing the Civil Rights Act?

[Sentinelrv]

I've noticed a lot of people responding to Ron's opposition to the civil rights act in a negative way, even if the article was written in a non-biased way that clearly presented Ron's position on the matter as being pro-property rights and that he doesn't endorse any kind of racism. Here is an example...

"Besides, Paul says that the Jim Crow laws would have ended without the Civil Rights Act anyway, a view held by many libertarians who believe the free markets solve social problems."
This is awesome.

The free market, along with a little fairy dust, and a white unicorn, will SOLVE EVERYTHING.

They seem to think that if the civil rights act was repealed, that everything would go to hell and everybody would become racists. I oppose the CRA for the same reasons Ron does, but I do think it served a helpful purpose. I think the CRA may have helped in the process of conditioning a new belief system on the people of this country, a belief system of non-discrimination. While racism still exists, most people wouldn't dare discriminate in public for fear of being ostracized. It used to be socially acceptable to discriminate in public, but the CRA over time altered that view and its accompanying behavior. As I said, it conditioned new behavior as well as a mass belief system in people that it was socially unacceptable to discriminate against different races.

So why do people act as if repealing the CRA would unleash all the racists and things would go back to the way they were? It would never happen! A conditioned belief is very hard to break and can only be done through both conscious effort and a great deal of repetition. Beliefs are what make us consistent in the world, why we can't hop on a plane to another state and act out a completely different personality without people knowing it. If people have been conditioned into non-discrimination, then suddenly removing the CRA would have no affect on the way they treat others, as this belief system has already been conditioned on a mass scale in our society. Any acts of discrimination toward race would be rejected because of this mass belief we now have. As Dr. Paul says, because of this, any business that discriminated would be brought to its knees as it would be boycotted and eventually go out of business.

Maybe before the CRA was enacted this would have been the case, but not anymore, as the conditioned belief system of our society has changed from one opposite to the other. I've just been looking at this subject through what I know about human behavior and belief system conditioning. I believe it would be impossible to return to what used to be considered socially acceptable without a great deal of effort. Do any of you believe there would be huge negative consequences if the CRA was repealed, or do you believe as I do that our society's current belief system of non-discrimination would act as a preventative measure against the behavior of segregation, allowing the free market to function and root out any business that allowed it? I believe the free market functions based on the belief systems of the individuals of our society and that it wouldn't allow racism to return in large amounts unless something significant happened to alter those beliefs.

EDIT: An addon for clarification of my position:

What I'm saying is that coercion or force was used by the government through this bill to change people's behavior and belief systems over the long-term. It did just that, but that doesn't mean I would have supported the bill in the first place. No, I would have rejected it, because I don't believe in government force. All I'm saying is that by passing it, people did change, but it still wasn't right to force that change of behavior on people.

 

[low preference guy]

Do you Believe There Would be Huge Consequences to Repealing the Civil Rights Act?

lol



(honest immediate reaction)

 

[Carehn]

It would not do anything except allow a couple of racist landlords and bar owners to turn down perfectly good cash for no good reason. Nothing would come of it.

Laws or no laws this sort of thing is controlled by the culture. If people are asses no law can stop them from being so, and if people arn't then no law is needed.

 

[Anti Federalist]

It used to be socially acceptable to discriminate in public, but the CRA over time altered that view and its accompanying behavior. As I said, it conditioned new behavior as well as a mass belief system in people that it was socially unacceptable to discriminate against different races.

Put that way, you are just justifying the passage of the act in the first place.

No, the only way to defend this is to take the position that yes, some places would discriminate, (and I have no doubt that they would) but that barring government discrimination in the legal system, which still goes on to great degree anyway, people have that right to discriminate if they so choose.

Just like they have a right to smoke dope if they choose.

Or a million other things that people do that some of may disagree with.

 

[sailingaway]

I think no one plans to repeal it, and that the whole argument is a straw man we shouldn't be sidetracked by. Ron handled it, as far as I am concerned. Thinkprogress is bleating against it so their echo chamber has picked it up, but it is nothing next to what they were doing with Rand. I think Ron explained his point of view.

 

[Sentinelrv]

Put that way, you are just justifying the passage of the act in the first place.

What I'm saying is that coercion or force was used by the government through this bill to change people's behavior and belief systems over the long-term. It did just that, but that doesn't mean I would have supported the bill in the first place. No, I would have rejected it, because I don't believe in government force. All I'm saying is that by passing it, people did change, but it still wasn't right to force that change of behavior on people.

 

[low preference guy]

What I'm saying is that coercion or force was used by the government through this bill to change people's behavior and belief systems over the long-term. It did just that, but that doesn't mean I would have supported the bill in the first place. No, I would have rejected it, because i don't believe in government force. All I'm saying is that by passing it, things did change, but it still wasn't right to force the change of behavior on people.

People were forced to discriminate by law. I think eliminating that part is what changed people behavior, not forcing them to not discriminate.

 

[Theocrat]

Yes

I believe repealing the CRA would have huge consequences to our country, only because it would be interpreted that the federal government now supports racial discrimination. The general public has been conditioned to believe (via public schools) that the CRA helped curtail racism in a significant way. They fail to realize that the CRA only set a precedent for the federal government to be involved in more private matters, which it could see fit to sanction and condemn nationally. Title II of the CRA is a major example of that.

 

[TheNcredibleEgg]

It would have been a whole lot simpler if the Supreme Court had just ruled the Jim Crow Laws unconstitutional. Why they didn't - I don't know. They clearly seem unconstitutional. Were they ever challenge to the court?

But regardless of what could have been - the South brought the CRA upon America. They are to blame mostly.

 

[Golding]

The CRA is the ultimate strawman right now. There are invariably going to be bills that some voters are emotionally attached to (or emotionally against) that a presidential candidate doesn't feel entirely the same way about. The question is whether that candidate is going to be acting on that.

Is Ron Paul going to repeal the Civil Rights Act? No.

Is Ron Paul going to try to get the Patriot Act repealed? Yes.
I dare say that Gary Johnson is the only other Republican candidate that will want the Patriot Act repealed.

Will Barack Obama try to repeal the Patriot Act? Obviously no.

We just need to remind people of reality.

 

[ronpaulitician]

I think what racism remains in this country would be more prominently visible. Instead of store owners giving certain people inferior service they will just be up front about their ugliness and will post a sign telling those people that they will give them inferior (or no) service.

To those of us (the vast majority) who recognize the ugliness of racism, whether it is hidden or upfront, comes the burden of acting on it. Stop associating with racists. Be vocal about your opposition to racism. Stop purchasing goods and services from racists individuals. And spread the word.

 

[low preference guy]

I believe repealing the CRA would have huge consequences to our country, only because it would be interpreted that the federal government now supports racial discrimination.

Come oooonnnnnnn.

The white college kid who has a black friend will say: Oh, the government wants me to discriminate. You're not my friend anymore!

Herman Cain, had he still owned Godfather's pizza, would've said to his white client: Yesterday I served you our delicious pizza, but today I can do it no longer as a patriotic American. The government says it's OK to discriminate now. Didn't you see the "No Whitie" sign at the entrance?

 

[Echoes]

Come oooonnnnnnn.

The white college kid who has a black friend will say: Oh, the government wants me to discriminate. You're not my friend anymore!

Herman Cain, had he still owned Godfather's pizza, would've said to his white client: Yesterday I served you are delicious pizza, but today I can't do it no longer as a patriotic American. The government says it's OK to discriminate now. Didn't you see the "No Whitie" sign at the entrance?

It's like the heroin comment by Paul the other night...Pweeez Gov't stop me from being racist LOL

 

[Sentinelrv]

People were forced to discriminate by law. I think eliminating that part is what changed people behavior, not forcing them to not discriminate.

The Jim Crow laws may have conditioned people with the belief that it was ok to discriminate, and the opposite law, the CRA re-conditioned their normal behavior to its opposite. Either way, it would be nice to know what people really would have done if there were no laws enforcing any kind of behavior.

When did the Jim Crow laws get passed anway? Was racism in business bad before this happened? I'm not well versed in history unfortunately.

 

[low preference guy]

The Jim Crow laws may have conditioned people with the belief that it was ok to discriminate.

Why was the law in place? Because without it fewer people would discriminate. Moreover, in an environment of freedom, market forces would've driven racists out of business. In the long run it was worse for race relations because it conditioned people to wait for solutions from the federal government.

 

[low preference guy]

When did the Jim Crow laws get passed anway?

If I recall correctly, I think one of the reasons was that non-racist businessman were driving racists out of business. I don't have a link however.

 

[South Park Fan]

The idiocy of the CRA is demonstrated by the fact that it's fiercest defenders are rich white people. This may be a manifestation of subconscious racism, in that they feel that without laws to prevent it, American society would once again become segregated. The whole idea that most businesses would deny an entire potential pool of customers simply due to the owner's prejudices is ridiculous.

 

[Sentinelrv]

If I recall correctly, I think one of the reasons was that non-racist businessman were driving racists out of business. I don't have a link however.

Well, if true, that's proof right there that without either the Jim Crow laws or the CRA, the situation would have resolved itself through bankrupting the racists.

 

[doodle]

These questions are on no one's top priorities except some msnbc pundits, these are luxury debates for once America's impending grave economic and other threats have been tackled.

 

[Vessol]

Who created the Jim Crow laws to begin with? The government.

People LOVE blaming the free market for the problems that the government always creates.

Sometimes I think they keep the free market around in it's very limited form just so that they can blame it for everything.