Racist homeowners refuse to sell to black couple

[JustinTime]

http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/bridgeport-couple-charged_n_677473.html

Now in trouble with the law. What do you think?

 

[AlexMerced]

Well, they should be able to sell to whoever they want, but people should be able to stand outside with signs protesting as well, which would kill the property value of the whole block, which will then make all the neighbors put pressure on the couple to sell.

That's how the the free market handles bigotry.

 

[jmdrake]

YouTube - ‪I Don't Care‬‎

 

[brandon]

Who cares? People can sell to whoever they want. And I think the idea of protesting these people simply because you don't agree with their opinion is asinine. People need to stop being so sensitive. You might as well go protest someone for having bad taste in music.

 

[Acala]

ignorant and irrational

The marketplace eventually punishes irrationality. Let it do its thing.

 

[libertybrewcity]

shouldn't be any laws against this but give them hell for being horrible people.

 

[Light]

WTF I thought people here are about free association? I guess it would be okay for someone to protest outside a homosexual's home because he don't like their lifestyle choice. Oh, wait, that goes against cultural marxism, so he is actually a bad person. Plenty here are still trapped inside the marxist way of thinking.

 

[JustinTime]

The marketplace eventually punishes irrationality. Let it do its thing.

It could and most likely would, if the government didnt take it upon itself to do so first.

 

[Mini-Me]

The marketplace eventually punishes irrationality. Let it do its thing.

Pretty much, yeah: By cutting out part of their buyer market, racists are cutting down on demand for their house, which means that on average, they're going to have to sell for less money. Personally, I'd be pretty happy seeing them screw themselves like that.

 

[ChaosControl]

I think they're stupid, but I think it is their land and thus their right to make a dumb decision.

 

[wizardwatson]

Why would a black couple want to buy anything from a racist against blacks?

 

[jmdrake]

WTF I thought people here are about free association? I guess it would be okay for someone to protest outside a homosexual's home because he don't like their lifestyle choice. Oh, wait, that goes against cultural marxism, so he is actually a bad person. Plenty here are still trapped inside the marxist way of thinking.

Well the constitution guarantees freedom to peaceably assemble, which means constitutionally speaking people have a right to protest these racists. That said the constitution says nothing about freedom of association. (Read it front to back. It's not there). On the flipside the constitution says nothing about the federal government having any role in what is in fact intrastate commerce. If a state wanted to pass a law to punish people like this, the constitution neither requires nor forbids that. That said.....

YouTube - ‪I Don't Care‬‎

 

[Light]

Well the constitution guarantees freedom to peaceably assemble, which means constitutionally speaking people have a right to protest these racists.

Since racism is personal belief, could I protest outside a commie professor's home because I don't like his beliefs?

 

[jmdrake]

Since racism is personal belief, could I protest outside a commie professor's home because I don't like his beliefs?

Yep. And your commie professor has a right to counter protest in front of your house. What he (probably) doesn't have a right to do is fail you because of your personal belief. If you go to a state university that right is protected by the first amendment. If you go to a private university that right is probably protected by contract. It is possible I suppose to go to a private school that has a "We reserve the right to fail you based on your personal beliefs" clause.

 

[jmdrake]

Why would a black couple want to buy anything from a racist against blacks?

Because they like the house?

 

[osan]

Well, they should be able to sell to whoever they want,

Grammar police alert: to whomever... just a headup.

but people should be able to stand outside with signs protesting as well

Should they? Do you really believe that?

which would kill the property value

That is questionable, but assuming it is demonstrably true, you appear to be supporting the unjustifiable damaging of property, albeit indirectly. The policy of the sellers is none of anybody's business but theirs.

of the whole block, which will then make all the neighbors put pressure on the couple to sell.

Which is overt coercion, i.e. initiation of force.

That's how the the free market handles bigotry.

No, it is not. Not even close. The free market "handles" bigotry with the pocketbook. If, for example, a store put a sign in the window saying "we do not serve negroes", those offended by such a policy are well within their rights not to patronize that establishment. Those who are neutral and those who find it agreeable are free to walk in. If there is sufficient reaction to such a policy, the business either changes it or closes its doors. That is how the free market responds (not "handles") that which it finds disagreeable. There is a fundamental difference between positive and negative action. In the case here, positive action is an example of a cure that is worse than the problem is it intended to address.

In a free market - a free society - people mind their own damned business. Period. Respect for the rights of bigots is every bit as crucial as for those of anyone else. Even some people here, with all their talk of liberty and free markets, don't get it. Freedom is an all or nothing deal. We are either free or we are not - there is absolutely NOTHING in between. Hypocrisy has no place where the issue of freedom is concerned.

 

[osan]

Who cares? People can sell to whoever they want. And I think the idea of protesting these people simply because you don't agree with their opinion is asinine. People need to stop being so sensitive. You might as well go protest someone for having bad taste in music.

+1+

 

[Acala]

private property

but people should be able to stand outside with signs protesting as well, .

This is only true because government owns the roads. In a truly free market where the roads were privately owned it would be up to the owner of the road whether or not protesters could assemble there.

If I owned the road, the rule would be that you can protest in the road but drivers can try to run you over if they want.

 

[jmdrake]

Should they? Do you really believe that?

Should they protest or do they have a right to do so? If the question is "should they" that's a personal opinion issue that folks can agree to disagree on. If it's do they have a right to do so, absolutely. As long as the protesters aren't on private property and aren't disturbing the peace. (Being loud, blocking traffic etc.)

That is questionable, but assuming it is demonstrably true, you appear to be supporting the unjustifiable damaging of property, albeit indirectly. The policy of the sellers is none of anybody's business but theirs.

So? There's no general law against damaging property value nor should there be. If someone wrote an op-ed piece in the paper about how these sellers are first class jerks that might damage their property value to. So what? They made the choice to be jerks. Let's say if instead of this being a protest, the buyers took out a full page ad in the paper. The ad might not just discourage blacks from bidding on the house, but some non racists whites as well. If that knocked down their property value would that bother you too? Why? What about personal responsibility for your own actions?

Which is overt coercion, i.e. initiation of force.

No more "force" than the "force" of a bad review on eBay.

No, it is not. Not even close. The free market "handles" bigotry with the pocketbook. If, for example, a store put a sign in the window saying "we do not serve negroes", those offended by such a policy are well within their rights not to patronize that establishment.

The free market works in all kinds of mysterious and wondrous ways. Boycotts and protests are definitely a part of the free market. A critic giving a bad review of your restaurant can hurt your business too. So what? Cry me a river!

Hypocrisy has no place where the issue of freedom is concerned.

Freedom means the government can't force you to do what they want. It doesn't mean private actors can't apply social pressure.

 

[jmdrake]

This is only true because government owns the roads. In a truly free market where the roads were privately owned it would be up to the owner of the road whether or not protesters could assemble there.

If I owned the road, the rule would be that you can protest in the road but drivers can try to run you over if they want.

Fair enough, as long as I get to shoot at the drivers. Of course I'm assuming Alex meant protesting on the sidewalk and not the road. If you allowed drivers to go up on your sidewalk just to run over protesters, what happens when they run over some innocent bystander?