Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Ku Klux Klan?

[Working Poor]

This is a great question to ask a liberal. Lol

I created a poll at my favorite liberal site and you can believe that the yeses are ahead. Here is the link in case anyone would like to read the comments:

http://lisafrequency.newsvine.com/_...-ku-klux-klan?lite#threadId4217376-lastNewId1

 

[Ronin Truth]

Only if a white restaurant owner can be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers.

 

[jmdrake]

By making some group memberships a "protected class" - but not others ...

Well considering that the KKK, for all its sliminess, is anti globalist, there's no way it would ever get to be a "protected class."

 

[jmdrake]

I voted yes, but here is the caveat:

It would force logical consistency in our current laws, which will awaken some people to their injustice.

Again. This argument itself lacks "logical consistency". Answer this question. Are you okay with the FBI barring known members of ISIS from becoming members? Are you okay with the FBI banning Arabs from being members? If the answer to both of those questions is the same then I question your sanity. If the answer to the first is "yes" and the second is "no" then you should understand that your argument WRT the KKK and the CRA doesn't hold water.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Should a white restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers?

Of course not, and this is why Rand Paul was exactly right for opposing the section of the Civil Rights Act that enforces this sort of thing.

 

[jmdrake]

JM,

Thank you so much for your reply! Let me try to explain myself a little more. By the way, are you a libertarian?

No. I refuse to wear that label because of stupid people like John Stossel. Those pushing his idiocy help confirm why I would never want to be considered a libertarian. I don't think Ron Paul would ever make a retarded argument like this. I respect Ron Paul's position on the CRA though I don't totally agree with it. But Ron Paul is not retarded. John Stossel is.

Well, everyone has a different idea of what is important and fundamental vs. what is trivia and relatively unimportant. My own bias is that philosophical issues are more important. Or, actually, just that they are more interesting and intellectually stimulating to talk about. Which is my purpose for coming on this discussion forum. I had to look up your court case. Ah, the farmer who affected interstate commerce through not engaging in interstate commerce. I was aware of this case through listening to countless Mises lectures, but did not even know the name of it. Didn't care. But you did. See? We have different ideas of what's important. I say: "Who cares what the name of some old case where the black dresses tossed off yet another awful, nonsensical, and tyrannical verdict? That's to be expected. They have incentive to be awful." You say: "You are so ignorant you don't even know the name of this court case, much less its details and intricacies. I'm sure you've never read the court proceedings report! (guilty as charged). You've also probably never read the Civil Rights Act. (guilty again). Why, you're not qualified to have an opinion on this matter!"

You should have paid more attention to the Mises lecture. It's not just because of the farmer and food issue. Wickard v. Filburn is the BASIS for almost all federal regulations that you don't like! Not understanding Wickard v. Filburn is like trying to support free markets and not understanding the Federal Reserve. Wickard v. Filburn is the reason why Supreme Court Justice nominees can say things like this:



Wickard v. Filburn is why the U.S. Supreme Court claims the Federal Government can have national prohibition of marijuana and other drugs.

So, different people have different ideas of what is important and indispensable to know in order to form a correct opinion on a matter. Would you agree?

Have whatever opinion you want. I really don't care. But the KKK analogy is incompetent. If you want to push it and look incompetent, go ahead.

Also, it sounds like you would like the Civil Rights Act to be done away with, along with all such intrastate commerce regulation by the Ferals. You'd like reverse the Wickard/Filburn decision, right? Am I right about that?

Two different things. I would like Wickard/Filburn overturned. Technically parts of the CRA could stand without it. That's because of the way the CRA is written. Wickard v. Filburn addressed produce that didn't travel in interstate commerce but could arguably have some cumulative effect on interstate commerce. The CRA only covers restaurants that are near interstate highways or use a substantial amount of food that traveled in interstate commerce. The "near interstate highways" party couldn't stand without Wickard v. Filburn. The "food that traveled in interstate commerce" portion arguably could. The irony here is that a restaurant that was off the beaten path and that embraced the "buy local" movement could discriminate based on race and not violate the CRA. So this is what I'm for. Overturn Wickard v. Filburn and let the chips fall where the may on the CRA or anything else. I don't have this CRA obsession you and others seem to have.

Great! Again, it clearly was not a Woolworth's problem. To the extent there was a problem, it was a state problem. It's always a state problem. That's kind of the default for all problems. Is society experiencing a baffling problem? Let's see if the monopoly state is somehow causing it. Chances are, it is. Otherwise, society tends to match people's preferences. When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state.

It was more than just a state problem. If it was only a state problem then Woolworth would have automatically desegregated everywhere after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. Woolworth didn't. Why? Because in the south they faced KKK violence if they desegregated coupled with potential loss of income from whites who wouldn't eat with blacks. The black "sit ins" caused a change in the economic equilibrium. The disruption of economic activity from those private acts of civil disobedience meant that trying to appease white customers who didn't want to eat with blacks just wasn't worth it. Technically speaking the sit ins were as much a violation of the oh so sacred "property rights" as was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I've seen people here at RPF argue against them on that very basis. So no, it's not just the "state monopoly" that was the problem. It was the human condition.

OK. I will explain how I see it. And then you can explain, logically, carefully, slowly, why I am wrong. Is it a deal? Here is how I see it:

1. Slavery is involuntary servitude. Slavery encompasses more than just chattel slavery. The military draft, for instance, is slavery. The income tax is also slavery.

2. No one should be enslaved, that is, made to give in involuntary service. Even very unpopular people in very unpopular groups, like businessmen.

3. The CRA forces certain businessmen running their business in certain ways to serve certain people, even if that is against their will. They force businessmen to give service involuntarily.

4. Thus, the CRA implements slavery against businessmen. Now you can say, "who cares about those money-grubbing businessmen, b-men -- bee-ggers, I call them. Them bee-ggers ain't even human. They're meant to serve us, their superiors, that's just the natural order of things. They don't like it, they can stop being dirty bee-ggers." But if you said that, I would disagree. I oppose slavery, even against unpopular groups of people.

If I have a business -- no matter what the business type, no matter how "open to the public" it is -- I have the right to serve, or to not serve, anyone I choose.

Does that all make sense? Even if you disagree with it, please do go to the effort of making it make sense in your mind (or if you have any questions, please ask) and then, like I said, please slowly and logically explain exactly why I am wrong in my reasoning. Because to me, you understand, the case seems awfully air-tight.

The military draft does not give you the option of simply not going. So your own analogy destroys your own argument. If you own a business and you don't want to serve certain people, you can go out of business. But you also can avoid serving certain people and not violate the civil rights act by simply being careful where you buy your food from and where you are located. As for the income tax, that's not slavery. That's theft. Money that you earn is taken from you without compensation. Nobody is forcing you to work to earn it. If the local mafia comes and shakes the hookers down for a cut of their action that's theft. If the local mafia grabs women who don't want to be hookers and forces them to be hookers that's slavery. So no. Your "CRA = slavery" argument is not valid.

Certainly I lack a great deal of understanding. I readily acknowledge this. And I have no problem talking to you, my intellectual superior. But perhaps it irritates you to have to talk to inferiors like myself?

It irritates me that some people feel I must accept what to me is an incompetent and offensive analogy in order to be considered a "libertarian". So I reject the label. It's irritating to me that after 4 years of this being discussed people still can't seem to understand that race != voluntary group membership. It's irritating to me that you seem to want to force what I consider a stupid idea down my throat by resurrecting a dead thread and calling me out in it. Those are my "irritations".

I do not think that is the case in the way I would like it to be the case. People are not at liberty to open the Whites Only Drive-Through Hamburgertopia. And I believe they should be. My understanding of freedom is that forcing anyone to serve anyone else is antithetical to freedom.

Do you want to open one? If you do and you are willing to pay me the legal fees to explain to you how you can then let me know I'll draw up the paperwork for you. I'll be happy to take your money so that you can do something stupid. Now, if you want to open up a McDonald's or a Burger King you still have to draw up certain paperwork and follow certain regulations. So...if your definition of "freedom" is "I should be able to do whatever I want without having to draw up the right papers"...well getting rid of the CRA won't make you "free". And that's why I think this entire discussion is a stupid distraction. You can't even open up a lemonade stand in most cities without a business license and you are concerned with whether or not you can open up a "whites only" one? To me that's just stupid. I want to reach out to the people that understand that stopping a kid from selling lemonade for 25 cents a cup because he hasn't paid of the state goons is dumb. You give fodder to those who say "libertarians just want to be racist". Fine. We're at cross purposes. You seek your definition of freedom, I'll seek mine, and I'll gladly not wear the libertarian label.

I do not think it should. And it most certainly wouldn't bother me. So you can say that I am wrong for not being bothered, that my botherment subsystem is out of order, but the fact remains that I am really and truly not bothered by such things. Sorry! I just believe people should be free to do whatever peaceful, voluntary things they want to do! That's just me! Sorry if that makes me wrong or broken.

I never said you should believe that people shouldn't be free to be racist. That's different from being bothered that people are racist. From what I understand libertarians believe that racism is another form of collectivism and is thus wrong. Not everything that is wrong should be illegal. But if you don't think that racism is wrong then maybe you are not libertarian. But hey, I reject the libertarian label so you can do the same as well.

 

[jmdrake]

Should a white restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers?

Of course not, and this is why Rand Paul was exactly right for opposing the section of the Civil Rights Act that enforces this sort of thing.

Except no part of the civil rights act enforces that sort of thing. Why do people keep pushing the same false idea as if it is true? Repeat 100 times.

The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
.......

 

[jmdrake]

Only if a white restaurant owner can be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers.

Right. And under the CRA as written they can't. They can't even be forced to serve members of the NAACP if their reason for denying admission to the restaurant is their membership in the NAACP. This whole thread is one big red herring.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Except no part of the civil rights act enforces that sort of thing. Why do people keep pushing the same false idea as if it is true? Repeat 100 times.

The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
.......

But it does apply to businesses, which is what we're talking about.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

No. I refuse to wear that label because of stupid people like John Stossel. Those pushing his idiocy help confirm why I would never want to be considered a libertarian. I don't think Ron Paul would ever make a retarded argument like this. I respect Ron Paul's position on the CRA though I don't totally agree with it. But Ron Paul is not retarded. John Stossel is.

Well, we will have to disagree there. Ron Paul, of course, is in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act. As am I. And as is John Stossel. If you think even the people who agree with your views are retarded unless they use the exact same rhetoric and arguments that you would use in promoting those views, you have likely doomed yourself to living a life surrounded by retards. <shrug>

You should have paid more attention to the Mises lecture. It's not just because of the farmer and food issue. Wickard v. Filburn is the BASIS for almost all federal regulations that you don't like!

I did, actually, understand that point of view. Sorry I did not make my understanding more clear to you. But that does not mean I agree with it. I believe that actually it is the ideology of the people, and especially of the natural elites and opinions leaders, that is the basis for what the federal government does.

Have whatever opinion you want. I really don't care. But the KKK analogy is incompetent. If you want to push it and look incompetent, go ahead.

Actually, my own preferred analogy (at least one of them) is to draw a parallel between the aggressive, violent enslavement that the civil rights act enacts with other enslavement. I oppose all the enslavement.

I don't have this CRA obsession you and others seem to have.

Do you also not have this
police abuse obsession
monetary policy obsession
occupational licensure obsession
land tax obsession
aviation regulations obsession
zoning laws obsession
that I and others have?

It's all about freedom to me. I'm in love with and passionate about freedom. Obsession makes it sound like a bad, unhealthy thing, but laying aside that connotation: yes, I am obsessed with freedom!

Great! Again, it clearly was not a Woolworth's problem. To the extent there was a problem, it was a state problem. It's always a state problem. That's kind of the default for all problems. Is society experiencing a baffling problem? Let's see if the monopoly state is somehow causing it. Chances are, it is. Otherwise, society tends to match people's preferences. When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state.

It was more than just a state problem. If it was only a state problem then Woolworth would have automatically desegregated everywhere after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. Woolworth didn't. Why? Because in the south they faced KKK violence if they desegregated coupled with potential loss of income from whites who wouldn't eat with blacks.

That doesn't sound like a problem to me. As I explained, "When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state." Sounds to me like the people's preferences were being met. You have just stated that there was a widespread, dominant preference in the south for whites and blacks to stay apart in many contexts. That the market would succeed therefore in allowing whites and blacks to stay apart in these contexts is not surprising. That is success for the market, not a failure, not a problem. The market succeeds when it allows people to be free to live their lives how they want to live it. That includes "racist" white people, and also the "racist" black people who likewise preferred voluntary segregation. Sorry!

Now finally we get to the meat of what I was saying. Let's see if you were able to carefully, logically, explain to me why I'm wrong.

The military draft does not give you the option of simply not going. So your own analogy destroys your own argument. If you own a business and you don't want to serve certain people, you can go out of business. But you also can avoid serving certain people and not violate the civil rights act by simply being careful where you buy your food from and where you are located. As for the income tax, that's not slavery. That's theft. Money that you earn is taken from you without compensation. Nobody is forcing you to work to earn it. If the local mafia comes and shakes the hookers down for a cut of their action that's theft. If the local mafia grabs women who don't want to be hookers and forces them to be hookers that's slavery. So no. Your "CRA = slavery" argument is not valid.

OK, so you are contesting my point #1: Slavery is involuntary servitude. You want slavery to mean something else. I am unwilling to go along with your linguistic proposal, however. Slavery is involuntary servitude. That's really what it means.

"Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others." -- Dictionary.com
"the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work" -- The British Dictionary
"forced submission to control by others" -- Wordnet, Princeton University
" a condition of submission to or domination by some influence, habit, etc." Webster's New World College Dictionary
"control of certain persons for the benefit of other persons, usually under the guise of social, mercantile, and technological progress." -- Encyclopedia.com

So that is how I am using the term "slavery." I am using it to encompass more than just chattel slavery. I do understand that the income tax does not constitute chattel slavery, but it does constitute slavery, because the payer of it is laboring a certain percentage of his time for the benefit of another person or group which is not entitled to it by any legitimate contractual means, and he is doing so against his will. "You could just not work at all!" is true, but does not negate the income tax's nature as slavery. Just so, forcing a retail business to serve races the owner does not want to serve is slavery. Or forcing him to serve gays. Or forcing him to operate in any way which is not how they would choose to operate. That is slavery and that is wrong and I am opposed to it.

If you find it offensive or baffling that I use the word slavery in this way, JM, feel free to substitute the words "involuntary service" in every instance and you will achieve a perfect translation of my meaning.

It irritates me that some people feel I must accept what to me is an incompetent and offensive analogy in order to be considered a "libertarian".

There may be someone who does that, but rest assured that I do not. So if you are irritated with me: rejoice! Your irritation can cease! I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of the analogy, and the problems you have with it. Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status. It is completely different. One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not. I really do understand that. I just want you to know that.

I just oppose all aggressive force. Period. That's why I come down on this issue the way I do. Not because of some stretched analogy by John Stossel that is admittedly flawed. Because the CRA initiates aggressive force. Period.

It's irritating to me that you seem to want to force what I consider a stupid idea down my throat by resurrecting a dead thread and calling me out in it.

In looking at the thread in relation to animal rights and distributed micro-polities (a different post) I just also noticed myself writing many things to which you never replied and on which I was curious what you thought.

You still never have said whether you would support the total repeal of the civil rights act. Or, perhaps a better and clearer way to put it: do you support the use of aggressive violence and threat of such to force any business owners to serve blacks together with and equally to whites? Any business owners, regardless of where they buy their vegetables.

So...if your definition of "freedom" is "I should be able to do whatever I want without having to draw up the right papers"...well getting rid of the CRA won't make you "free".

No, indeed it won't. Nor will eliminating zoning laws. Nor pet licensure laws. Nor the Import-export Bank. Nor the National Endowment for the Arts. But each one of those elinimations would be a little step forward. Towards liberty.

To liberty, JM! To liberty!

 

[jmdrake]

Well, we will have to disagree there. Ron Paul, of course, is in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act. As am I. And as is John Stossel. If you think even the people who agree with your views are retarded unless they use the exact same rhetoric and arguments that you would use in promoting those views, you have likely doomed yourself to living a life surrounded by retards. <shrug>

I have yet to see Ron Paul use the KKK = race argument that you and Stossel are using. The day Ron Paul says this I will realize he must be retarded too.

I did, actually, understand that point of view. Sorry I did not make my understanding more clear to you. But that does not mean I agree with it. I believe that actually it is the ideology of the people, and especially of the natural elites and opinions leaders, that is the basis for what the federal government does.

I'm talking legal basis. I'm saying that that federal regulation of private business occurred before passage of the CRA and would still exist if the CRA was repealed.

Actually, my own preferred analogy (at least one of them) is to draw a parallel between the aggressive, violent enslavement that the civil rights act enacts with other enslavement. I oppose all the enslavement.

Prefer it all you want. But KKK != race. If you want to base your argument on an invalid analogy more power to you. If you want to force me to accept your analogy as valid when I know that is isn't then you're wasting your time.

Do you also not have this
police abuse obsession
monetary policy obsession
occupational licensure obsession
land tax obsession
aviation regulations obsession
zoning laws obsession
that I and others have?

Sure. Which is why I'm not obsessing over the CRA. Again federal regulation of private business occurred before passage of the CRA and would still exist if the CRA was repealed. You're barking up the wrong tree. Go right ahead and do that. Just quit trying to enslave me to your position. (Since you like to abuse the term "slave" so much.) Most people are at least willing to listen to the "Let's get rid of police brutality" argument. You'll find your "I'm so oppressed by the CRA" audience at Stormfront.

It's all about freedom to me. I'm in love with and passionate about freedom. Obsession makes it sound like a bad, unhealthy thing, but laying aside that connotation: yes, I am obsessed with freedom!

Then spend the most energy on things that will gain you the most freedom and don't obsess over things that give you freedom to do what you don't want to do anyway. Somewhere there is a law that says it's illegal to whistle under water. That was in one of those "obsolete law" joke books. Now frankly I think someone should the right to attempt to do that if they really want to. But I'm not going to waste my energy trying to get such a law repealed. If you want to fight to overturn laws barring people from whistling underwater go right ahead. Just quit trying to force me to adopt your position.

That doesn't sound like a problem to me. As I explained, "When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state." Sounds to me like the people's preferences were being met. You have just stated that there was a widespread, dominant preference in the south for whites and blacks to stay apart in many contexts. That the market would succeed therefore in allowing whites and blacks to stay apart in these contexts is not surprising. That is success for the market, not a failure, not a problem. The market succeeds when it allows people to be free to live their lives how they want to live it. That includes "racist" white people, and also the "racist" black people who likewise preferred voluntary segregation. Sorry!

The "market" was backed up by terrorist violence. If you are okay with that "market success" then were are at cross purposes and Stormfront is a better audience for what you want to push. "Sorry".

Edit: Note I'm not saying you're racist. You may be, you may not be. I don't care. But at every point that Ron or Rand Paul talked about civil rights they always endorsed the ultimate outcome that we don't have widespread racial segregation today even if they disagreed with the way we got here. If I thought for a minute that either of them were looking wistfully back at racial segregation as "the market working as it is supposed to" then I wouldn't be a part of this movement.

Now finally we get to the meat of what I was saying. Let's see if you were able to carefully, logically, explain to me why I'm wrong.

OK, so you are contesting my point #1: Slavery is involuntary servitude. You want slavery to mean something else. I am unwilling to go along with your linguistic proposal, however. Slavery is involuntary servitude. That's really what it means.

No. I don't "want" slavery to mean anything other than what it actually means. Being taxed is not involuntary servitude. It is theft. Involuntary servitude means that I can't quit the job even if I want to quit. It does not mean that someone takes money that is due me. Forced union dues is not involuntary servitude. It is theft. Mafia shakedowns of hookers is not involuntary servitude. It is theft. A mafia making a woman be a prostitute is involuntary servitude. It is involuntary servitude even if the mafia lets the woman keep all of the money that she earns. You do not understand what involuntary servitude means. I have clearly explained that to you already.

If you find it offensive or baffling that I use the word slavery in this way, JM, feel free to substitute the words "involuntary service" in every instance and you will achieve a perfect translation of my meaning.

You don't understand what involuntary servitude is. Switching around words to make the same false claims is no different. Your "meaning" is based on a falsehood.

I just oppose all aggressive force. Period.

If that were true then you wouldn't be okay with the "market outcome" that was based in part on the aggressive force of the KKK.

You still never have said whether you would support the total repeal of the civil rights act.

I don't care.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I have yet to see Ron Paul use the KKK = race argument that you and Stossel are using.

Would you please quote me where I used this argument? Thanks!

Prefer it all you want. But KKK != race.

I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of Mr. Stossel's analogy, and the problems you have with it. Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status. It is completely different. One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not. I really do understand that. I just want you to know that.

If you want to base your argument on an invalid analogy more power to you.

Would you please quote me where I based an argument on Mr. Stossel's analogy? Thanks!

still can't seem to understand that race != voluntary group membership.

I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of Mr. Stossel's analogy, and the problems you have with it. Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status. It is completely different. One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not. I really do understand that. I just want you to know that.

If you want to force me to accept your analogy as valid when I know that is isn't then you're wasting your time.

Would you please quote me where I attempted to make you accept his (not my!) analogy? Thanks!

You'll find your "I'm so oppressed by the CRA" audience at Stormfront.

Thanks! I guess maybe you're right, the CRA just an irrelevant relic with no relevance today. Is the SDA Church now ordaining gays, then?

Just quit trying to force me to adopt your position.

I am far from sure that you even have any idea what my position is on this! If I were to try to get you to adopt my position, understanding what it is would be the necessary first step, and I have failed to convey that understanding.

The "market" was backed up by terrorist violence.

Which I oppose. I oppose aggressive force, you see. All of it. Even if it's supposedly supposed to help black people.

We don't have widespread racial segregation today

This is demonstrably false.

No. I don't "want" slavery to mean anything other than what it actually means.

Oh, good.

Being taxed is not involuntary servitude. It is theft.

Being forced to pay an income tax is, in fact, involuntary servitude. Paying someone is a service. I don't want to do it; that makes it involuntary. Involuntary + service = involuntary service.

Involuntary servitude means that I can't quit the job even if I want to quit.

Or that you must quit doing or start doing something else which you do not want to quit or start as a requirement for avoiding the servitude. For example, someone who wants to work for their employer, but doesn't want to work for the government. To avoid paying the income tax, one would have to stop serving their employer, whom they do not want to stop serving.

Forced union dues is not involuntary servitude. It is theft.

It is the ongoing and unavoidable nature of the forced service that makes it not just a single incident of theft, but rather an ongoing enslavement. Forced union dues certainly are a theft, just as you say, but they are an enslavement as well.

I just oppose all aggressive force. Period.

If that were true

I assure you that it is true. If you wish to show me some aggressive force somewhere that you think I do not oppose, please feel free to do so. It is certainly very possible that I am being inconsistent in some way or have a blind spot somewhere -- we're all only human! -- but you have not shown me any such failing.

Regardless of what you want to call the ongoing aggressive force being used to force business owners to serve blacks, I oppose it. Do you? Or do you support the use of aggressive force on business owners to force them to serve blacks? What say you, JMDrake?

 

[osan]

Yes or no?

Feel free to argue your response in the thread.

Not a yes or no issue. Answers depend upon full context.

That said, if white owners have to serve Black Panthers or some other raft of obnoxious sissies, then yes, the Klan must be served. What is good for the goose, and all that.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Not a yes or no issue. Answers depend upon full context.

What part of "Should a restaurant owner be forced" requires any context at all? Should we use force to compel people to stop their peaceful, voluntary behavior? Should we use force? That's really the only question.

I am sincerely shocked at your reply to this, osan. I could probably quote 10 of your own posts at you that would seem to agree with my position: peaceful people must be left alone. I thought you were a pure no-aggression 100%-freedom guy.

 

[jmdrake]

Would you please quote me where I used this argument? Thanks!

This whole thread is making that argument! It replaces the word "black" with the word "KKK" as if they were synonymous. If you reject Stossels stupidity then great! There was no reason for you to resurrect this thread. Thank you for wasting everybody's time with stupidity that you don't even (apparently) agree with.

I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of Mr. Stossel's analogy, and the problems you have with it. Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status. It is completely different. One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not. I really do understand that. I just want you to know that.

Great. Then this thread is a waste of time. Glad you see that.

Would you please quote me where I based an argument on Mr. Stossel's analogy? Thanks!

Okay. You're just wasting everybody's time. I understand. You're not stupid. You're just trolling. Thanks for clearing that up.

I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of Mr. Stossel's analogy, and the problems you have with it. Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status. It is completely different. One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not. I really do understand that. I just want you to know that.

Okay. You're just wasting everybody's time. I understand. You're not stupid. You're just trolling. Thanks for clearing that up.

Would you please quote me where I attempted to make you accept his (not my!) analogy? Thanks!

Okay. You're just wasting everybody's time. I understand. You're not stupid. You're just trolling. Thanks for clearing that up.

Thanks! I guess maybe you're right, the CRA just an irrelevant relic with no relevance today. Is the SDA Church now ordaining gays, then?

Nope. The SDA church isn't ordaining women either. That should tell you something as the CRA covers gender. And the CRA wouldn't make the SDA church ordain blacks. (SDAs were ordaining blacks shortly after the Civil War so for the record.) Churches are not defined as "public accommodations" so the CRA as written doesn't cover them. And if it did then it would still run up against the free exercise clause of the first amendment. But you are at least getting warm as to a somewhat cogent argument against the CRA. I hinted that there was one some posts back. You're still not there though.

I am far from sure that you even have any idea what my position is on this! If I were to try to get you to adopt my position, understanding what it is would be the necessary first step, and I have failed to convey that understanding.

You may be right. I don't know. My position throughout this thread has neither been pro nor against the CRA. It's that 1) John Stossels analogy is a stupid embarrassment to the liberty movement and people should quit advancing it on that point alone and 2) if you want to beat back the incursion of the federal government into private business than deal with the root of the problem (abuse of the commerce clause) and argue about things normal people actually care about (i.e. medical marijuana or gun control). You can actually find a constituency of people, liberals, conservatives, whatever, that chafe under federal regulation of those issues. Arguing over the right to be racist just makes you look silly. If you want to look silly by yourself go ahead. I have no intention of being part of that.

Which I oppose. I oppose aggressive force, you see. All of it. Even if it's supposedly supposed to help black people.

Are you opposed to the sit ins? How about the snowballs thrown at Sean Hannity? How about the Boston Tea Party? Shame on those "aggressive colonists" throwing that perfectly good tea overboard! Aggressive force used to counter aggressive force = self defense. (Okay. The snowballs at Hannity were just fun. The snowballs thrown at the British Redcoats were revolutionary.)

This is demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate. Find me all of these white only stores you apparently think exist. Show me the last time some well known celebrity got away with endorsing racial segregation. Explain why the LA Clippers now have, or are about to have[1], a new owner. Find me all of these white only neighborhoods that I can't move into even if I want to and have the money. Maybe we have a different definition of "segregation" or a different definition of "widespread".

[1] Note I haven't kept up with the latest in the Don Sterling saga.

Oh, good.

Being forced to pay an income tax is, in fact, involuntary servitude. Paying someone is a service. I don't want to do it; that makes it involuntary. Involuntary + service = involuntary service.

No it isn't. When you are mugged you don't charge your mugger with enslaving you. You charge him with theft. Really, if you want to have the last word in this I'll let you. I'm not going to keep correcting you over and over again. A hooker being shaken down by the mafia has not been enslaved. A woman forced to be a prostitute has been enslaved even if she is allowed to keep all over her money. That's the last I will say on this. But this back and for this silly. It's like I say 2 + 2 = 4 and you say "No it equals 5" without any rhyme or reason. If you can quit you are neither a slave nor an involuntary servant.

Or that you must quit doing or start doing something else which you do not want to quit or start as a requirement for avoiding the servitude. For example, someone who wants to work for their employer, but doesn't want to work for the government. To avoid paying the income tax, one would have to stop serving their employer, whom they do not want to stop serving.

Wrong. If you are a slave, if you are in involuntary servitude YOU CAN'T QUIT! That's the definition of involuntary servitude. A chattel slave is the property of another. If you are someone else's property you can't decide "I just don't want to work anymore". You gave the military draft as an example. Someone who is drafted into the military just can't "quit".

It is the ongoing and unavoidable nature of the forced service that makes it not just a single incident of theft, but rather an ongoing enslavement. Forced union dues certainly are a theft, just as you say, but they are an enslavement as well.

Nope.

I assure you that it is true.

I can assure you that it isn't and that I place little value in your assurance of what is true.

Regardless of what you want to call the ongoing aggressive force being used to force business owners to serve blacks, I oppose it. Do you? Or do you support the use of aggressive force on business owners to force them to serve blacks? What say you, JMDrake?

Like I said. I don't care. I don't know how many times have to say that until you get it. But I won't say it again. You've already admitted that you were trolling in this thread. You're not even supporting Stossel's position so there was no need to bump it. So tell everybody once again that theft = slavery when it doesn't. I don't care. Last word = yours. Stupid zombie thread can die.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Great. Then this thread is a waste of time.

Sometimes a thread can transcend its original purpose. If, that is, the participants are truly seeking for mutual understanding.

Clearly your statistics prove your point....whatever your point is.

I know that sometimes the points I'm making can be strange. Hard to understand. I do know that. I'm sorry, that's just me. I do try to be comprehensible!

Did you want me to answer or address any of the questions or points you directed at me in your last post?

 

[osan]

What part of "Should a restaurant owner be forced" requires any context at all? Should we use force to compel people to stop their peaceful, voluntary behavior? Should we use force? That's really the only question.

I am sincerely shocked at your reply to this, osan. I could probably quote 10 of your own posts at you that would seem to agree with my position: peaceful people must be left alone. I thought you were a pure no-aggression 100%-freedom guy.

You are cherry picking.

I wrote that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. What that should say to you is that IF (big word there, semantically speaking) we are going to force one set to serve, then we must force all others. That is how the question in the OP was posed.

Now, if you are asking in universal terms, the answer for me is an unequivocal "no". But that is not what was asked, therefore I answered as I did.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You are cherry picking.

Not trying to! You posted four sentences, I replied to two.

What that should say to you is that IF (big word there, semantically speaking) we are going to force one set to serve, then we must force all others.

I don't see why. Less force would be better.

That is how the question in the OP was posed.

I just went back and read the OP. I'm not seeing it.

Now, if you are asking in universal terms, the answer for me is an unequivocal "no".

Cool, that's what I thought. That's the osan I know! Me too. Just Say No!

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The military draft does not give you the option of simply not going. So your own analogy destroys your own argument. If you own a business and you don't want to serve certain people, you can go out of business. But you also can avoid serving certain people and not violate the civil rights act by simply being careful where you buy your food from and where you are located.

You could grow your own food, presumably?

 

[osan]

Not trying to! You posted four sentences, I replied to two.

The sentences in question stand on their own

I don't see why. Less force would be better.

You cannot be serious. Then you are in favor of jim crow, effectively speaking. The issue here is EQUAL PROTECTION under law. If I'm forced to serve some group I do not wish to, then by God you'd damned better be forced to serve those whom you'd rather not.

Can you say HYPOCRISY?

Oy...

I just went back and read the OP. I'm not seeing it.

Then you are in dire need of glasses. It is right there in black and white. But let me not be accused of evasion. To wit:

if white owners have to serve Black Panthers ... then... the Klan must be served. What is good for the goose, and all that.

This is about equality of APPLICATION of law. If force is valid against Group A for non-criminal choices made, then it is valid for Group B. What you imply is that asymmetric application is valid. It is not. The argument that it is underpins nonsense such as "affirmative action", and it reeks.

Cool, that's what I thought. That's the osan I know! Me too. Just Say No!

Sure, to all of it. We either force everybody, or we force nobody.

I do not see how this is not glaringly apparent.