I ran into this straw-man argument when debating the Oregon baker incident

[nodeal]

So I was discussing the Oregon baker incident where those bakers got slapped by the strong arm of the government for not baking a cake for a gay couple.

Me and the person I was discussing this with were in agreement that the bakers should not have been penalized by law for not wanting to bake the cake. I pointed out nobody should be forced to engage in a transaction with anyone they don't want to, whether they are discriminating against them because of their sexuality, race, gender, etc.

Suddenly me and the person I was discussing with were no longer in agreement. He said you cannot discriminate because of race. I pointed out this was hypocritical of him, since he is okay with discriminating against someone because of their sexuality, but not because of their race. He didn't seem to care. Then he came out with this straw-man scenario:

He said what if a black man is trying to buy food for his family in a small, dominantly white neighborhood in the deep South. What if they refuse service to him and there are no other stores nearby? -- and there aren't enough black people in the neighborhood to justify a competitor opening a competing grocery store that caters to all races? How will he feed his family and what would black people do in this scenario if the government didn't force people to serve everyone?


I kind of fell victim to this strong man argument. I did not really have a reply that satisfied this "lonely black man in a white racist neighborhood trying to feed his family" scenario.

What would your replies have been? I want to strengthen my understanding of the argument so I can be ready next time someone comes at me with a scenario like this.

 

[timosman]

Google Express ?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You can't really go 5 miles in any direction in the South without running across a heavily populated predominantly black neighborhood. The black man in this scenario just found himself a gold mine. He will make a mint opening a local grocer to serve the black community. What your opponent calls discrimination, I would call a golden opportunity for real wealth.

 

[nodeal]

One of my counter arguments was, "well then the black person can open a grocer that sells to blacks and make money" to which he responded "but what if this is in an area where there are no other black people around that would patronize these grocers except for the few blacks being discriminated against."

 

[GunnyFreedom]

One of my counter arguments was, "well then the black person can open a grocer that sells to blacks and make money" to which he responded "but what if this is in an area where there are no other black people around that would patronize these grocers except for the few blacks being discriminated against."

Such an area does not exist in the South.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

My response would have been: "Too fucking bad".

 

[GunnyFreedom]

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Here it is by zip code, a smaller unit than counties.

 

[juleswin]

One of my counter arguments was, "well then the black person can open a grocer that sells to blacks and make money" to which he responded "but what if this is in an area where there are no other black people around that would patronize these grocers except for the few blacks being discriminated against."

But what if the area was deserted? just road and no stores? or he came into town without any money? So many possible imaginary scenarios that can still put him in trouble. Also the human being can go for 2 weeks plus without food and still be OK, he can drive to the next town for food and cross that area out of his map. Lastly the scenario he is talking about is very unlikely. Its unlikely that you will run into a town filled to the brim with racist white people and no black people at all who can help you.

 

[nodeal]

lol yeah it is a very unlikely scenario. Please just bear with me, I know It is frustrating to have to justify freedom against such ridiculous unlikely scenarios. I guess i am of the mindset that it is best to be prepared to have an answer prepared for these unlikely scenarios if it helps convince people freedom is the answer

I see there are clearly huge concentrations of blacks in the south. But for arguments sake, lets assume this is an area dominated by whites where there just simply aren't other black people nearby.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I think he is half right. He presented a really skewed argument saying Black People will go hungry if no one will sell them food. I think this is a little fallacious though as the original argument was about a luxury food, not a necessity.

Being denied cake is merely annoying or maybe embarrassing, but you won't starve or something.

For what it's worth, the argument could be turned around. An 'outted' gay couple could be discriminated against by grocers and not sold any food. While that scenario would be a big problem, that is beyond the real argument about a luxury item like Cake.

It's a slippery slope and can have example of every group. What if the cake decorator refuses to have a handicap access or wheel chair ramp and disabled customers are denied easy access to the store to order cake? That is just an inconvenience. It is true that if all grocers did this and disabled people didn't have easy access to basic food items, then you have a problem. You can even say the person is correct that denying customers access to basic food necessities is a real problem, but that is not what the discussion is about.

I think this kind of shit is so prevalent in American politics and makes so many discussions about social issues go off the rails into insane territory.

 

[Cleaner44]

So I was discussing the Oregon baker incident where those bakers got slapped by the strong arm of the government for not baking a cake for a gay couple.

Me and the person I was discussing this with were in agreement that the bakers should not have been penalized by law for not wanting to bake the cake. I pointed out nobody should be forced to engage in a transaction with anyone they don't want to, whether they are discriminating against them because of their sexuality, race, gender, etc.

Suddenly me and the person I was discussing with were no longer in agreement. He said you cannot discriminate because of race. I pointed out this was hypocritical of him, since he is okay with discriminating against someone because of their sexuality, but not because of their race. He didn't seem to care. Then he came out with this straw-man scenario:

He said what if a black man is trying to buy food for his family in a small, dominantly white neighborhood in the deep South. What if they refuse service to him and there are no other stores nearby? -- and there aren't enough black people in the neighborhood to justify a competitor opening a competing grocery store that caters to all races? How will he feed his family and what would black people do in this scenario if the government didn't force people to serve everyone?


I kind of fell victim to this strong man argument. I did not really have a reply that satisfied this "lonely black man in a white racist neighborhood trying to feed his family" scenario.

What would your replies have been? I want to strengthen my understanding of the argument so I can be ready next time someone comes at me with a scenario like this.

Reverse the argument. Let us assume that a black man owns a grocery store or restaurant and some white racist comes in demanding food while calling the black man a "n*gg*r" and being completely belligerent. Now one can say that the government should not allow the black man to discriminate against the white bigot and that he should be forced to sell food to the white bigot, but I think that would be wrong. I wonder if the person in your discussion would still support government force to stop the discrimination.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

This is an extremely unrealistic scenario (as in: never has and never will happen) for a variety of reasons, the primary one being that very few businessmen will discriminate in the absent of anti-discrimination laws. The vast majority of businessmen care about one color only: green. Turning away paying customers to satisfy your personal prejudices is not a great way to make money.

But, what if?

Well, our imaginary subject can always leave the area.

But what if he has no money for a car, etc, etc?

Well then I guess he starves. Tough luck.

P.S. It's funny that the only areas of the country where black people lack access to a grocery store are the "food deserts" in the overwhelmingly black inner cities.

 

[Occam's Banana]

And what if a goddam meteor hits the Earth and kills everybody?

In debates such as this, the only thing I hate more than the invocation of such ad hoc "life boat" scenarios is the tactic Robert Higgs referred to as "truncating the antecedents" (such as when you're arguing with an interventionist about what the U.S. should have done about Hitlter, and he tries to forbid you from making reference to the consequences of U.S. intervention in World War One ...)

No matter what you say, people like this will always be able to concoct some tortuously contrived "life boat" edge case to beat you over the head with.

Suddenly me and the person I was discussing with were no longer in agreement. He said you cannot discriminate because of race. I pointed out this was hypocritical of him, since he is okay with discriminating against someone because of their sexuality, but not because of their race. He didn't seem to care.

Then he is clearly an irrationalist who does not care about the reasonableness of what he himself says - let alone of anything you might say.
He is merely using emotionalistically loaded "what ifs" that are intentionally designed to shame you into acquiescence.

For whatever it might be worth, here is my advice for dealing with this guy (and people like him):

The only reason for engaging with such people is for the benefit of the audience. If there is no audience, then there is no point in engaging with such people at all - in that case, it's just a complete waste of time and you shouldn't even bother. But if you do have an audience, then hammer away at him for his hypocrisy regardless of whether he cares or not (he is not the one who matters - the audience is). Whatever you do, do not relent in exposing him for the mealy-mouthed double-talker he is.

Second, if you feel you absolutely must put your hands on the Tar Baby of his hypothetical "life boat" scenario, use the information others have provided in this thread to show just how ridiculous and absurd his jerry-rigged scenario is in the REAL world (not his make-it-up-as-you-go-along fantasy land). DO NOT give him the credit of taking it seriously. Insist that he address the actual issue (as revealed by his hypocrisy), and NOT some ever-shifting hypothetical that he is just going use to "move the goalposts" every time you refute any part of it.

 

[KCIndy]

He said what if a black man is trying to buy food for his family in a small, dominantly white neighborhood in the deep South. What if they refuse service to him and there are no other stores nearby? -- and there aren't enough black people in the neighborhood to justify a competitor opening a competing grocery store that caters to all races? How will he feed his family and what would black people do in this scenario if the government didn't force people to serve everyone?

Wow, talk about getting it backward!

In addition to Gunny's *VERY* valid point, the fact is that not every white merchant is going to refuse to take money from a black person. Money is GREEN, after all. It makes for a helluva good common denominator.

I wonder if the person you talked with had any idea that in the "Jim Crow" south, it was the government itself which made and enforced laws prohibiting white-owned businesses from selling to blacks.

I find it highly unlikely that any large group of people will be such lock-step ideologues that not one of them will cross a social line and sell to a minority - UNLESS they're confronted with a government using force to prevent them from doing so.

 

[Sam I am]

So I was discussing the Oregon baker incident where those bakers got slapped by the strong arm of the government for not baking a cake for a gay couple.

Me and the person I was discussing this with were in agreement that the bakers should not have been penalized by law for not wanting to bake the cake. I pointed out nobody should be forced to engage in a transaction with anyone they don't want to, whether they are discriminating against them because of their sexuality, race, gender, etc.

Suddenly me and the person I was discussing with were no longer in agreement. He said you cannot discriminate because of race. I pointed out this was hypocritical of him, since he is okay with discriminating against someone because of their sexuality, but not because of their race. He didn't seem to care. Then he came out with this straw-man scenario:

He said what if a black man is trying to buy food for his family in a small, dominantly white neighborhood in the deep South. What if they refuse service to him and there are no other stores nearby? -- and there aren't enough black people in the neighborhood to justify a competitor opening a competing grocery store that caters to all races? How will he feed his family and what would black people do in this scenario if the government didn't force people to serve everyone?


I kind of fell victim to this strong man argument. I did not really have a reply that satisfied this "lonely black man in a white racist neighborhood trying to feed his family" scenario.

What would your replies have been? I want to strengthen my understanding of the argument so I can be ready next time someone comes at me with a scenario like this.

I'm going to get neg-reps for saying this, but your friend actually has a point, in fact that's the whole reason why anyone is in favor of anti-discrimination laws in the first place, and similar things actually did occur in the past.

It didn't go so far as black people being unable to eat, but they definitely experienced a lower quality of life, and had access to fewer services than white people, for a reason that was no fault of their own. And the people who did the discriminating often faced no real consequences for doing it, in fact they might have faced social consequences for not discriminating.


That doesn't mean that discrimination laws always need to exist, but there are actual pros to having discrimination laws, and there is actual tension between that, and the store owner's right to run his business with freedom.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm going to get neg-reps for saying this, but your friend actually has a point, in fact that's the whole reason why anyone is in favor of anti-discrimination laws in the first place, and similar things actually did occur in the past.

Because of illegal and unconstitutional State laws that required private businesses to segregate. In the absence of such laws, the vast majority of those businesses which segregated their lunch counters, for example, would not have done so.

That doesn't mean that discrimination laws always need to exist, but there are actual pros to having discrimination laws, and there is actual tension between that, and the store owner's right to run his business with freedom.

 

[KCIndy]

I'm going to get neg-reps for saying this, but your friend actually has a point, in fact that's the whole reason why anyone is in favor of anti-discrimination laws in the first place, and similar things actually did occur in the past.

That doesn't mean that discrimination laws always need to exist, but there are actual pros to having discrimination laws, and there is actual tension between that, and the store owner's right to run his business with freedom.

Serious question: Why would you even WANT to buy from someone who did not want to sell you something? If someone did not want to sell me something because I'm a Second Amendment supporter, I would probably thank them. Why would I want my hard earned cash going to support someone who opposed my views?

And if the State used the threat of violence to force someone to sell me something consumable (food, drink..... or, say, wedding cake....) I would be afraid to eat it. After all, if some assh*le with a gun is forcing me to bake him a cake, he shouldn't be surprised to find a few extra "gifts" in his confection.

Last and most important, merchants are in business to make money. I can practically guarantee you that if one merchant refuses to sell a product, there will be two more waiting to pick up the business.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Because of illegal and unconstitutional State laws that required private businesses to segregate. In the absence of such laws, the vast majority of those businesses which segregated their lunch counters, for example, would not have done so.

Exactly. For just one concrete example of this, railroads - for whom the efficient distribution of "rolling stock" is critical - tried to run integrated passenger cars (rather than running separate "white" and "black" cars, each of which might end up being only half-filled).

But the segregationists weren't going to tolerate such nonsense and used government to put a stop to it - see Louisiana's Separate Car Act and, of course, Plessy v. Ferguson - thereby ushering in the infamous era of Supreme-Court-approved "separate but equal" bullshit.

Markets don't give a damn about black or white. Green (or, better yet, silver or gold) is the color they care about.

Politicians who pander to and reinforce the popular prejudices of the day under "color of law," on the other hand ...