JM,
Thank you so much for your reply! Let me try to explain myself a little more. By the way, are you a libertarian?
My position is look at the root of the problem (Wickard v Filburn) rather than wasting energy on the leaves.
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!"
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?
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?
Blacks in Nashville had desegregated Woolworth's prior to the passage of the CRA as well.
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.
If you believe that then you don't understand slavery and you don't understand the CRA.
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.
In fact this last post shows your lack of understanding. You need to seriously educate yourself before trying to convince anyone of anything.
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?
Anyone who wants to today could still not serve blacks and own a restaurant.
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.
Really, think this through. Say if you found out that Walmart barred people who were members of the KKK from being employees. Would that bother you? Because it wouldn't bother me. Say if Walmart barred card carrying communists from being employees. Would that bother you? It wouldn't bother me. How about if Walmart barred black people from being employees? That should bother you.
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. But I really, really believe that and feel that. If you show me with logic why I should not feel that way, then I can change my mind and feel differently.
