When educating people on Libertarianism, I usually lose them on the Civil Rights Act

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Usually when I talk to people about me being a libertarian and why I think it's a political ideology that provides the most freedom, they like it up until they bring up civil rights and Jim Crow laws.

I tell them about the Drug Laws which they like, prostitution which they like, free markets and economic freedom which they like, government staying out of your bedroom and your life as long as your not affecting someone else's life, liberty, and property, which they like. State rights...in which they pause.

Then the question comes up.

What's the libertarian stance on the Civil Rights Act and Jim Crow laws?

I tell them that those Jim Crow laws would never have been passed under a libertarian ideology because libertarianism is about judging individuals on their own merits not color. But then they say, still, what about Civil Right, since it basically told business owners that they had to serve people regardless of their race, religion, or sex. I tell them that goes against libertarian principles since that business owner has a right to his own property and to refuse his service to whom ever he wish for whatever reason.

That's where I lose them, and to be honest, it kind of troubles me in some ways. I guess because Im 28 and I have no idea what it is like not being able to go into a restaurant without checking if "Colored People" are allowed, or sitting at the back of the bus, are being denied access to a store or hotel. I am free so I dont know the pain of being denied like that. I ask my mom about, she is 65 and grew up here in the South during the height of the jim crow era and she said how happy she was to be able to go into this store that sells nice clothes finally once the civil rights laws were adopted. She said she used to have to send her mulatto friend (that looked white) in to buy here stuff. I couldn't imagine living like that.

My question is, what would have been the libertarian solution?>

 

[RideTheDirt]

boycott the business?

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Move somewhere that doesn't have as many racist businesses?

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

boycott the business?

How can you boycott a business your not allowed in?

 

[RonPaulCult]

I would be happier to see local communities make laws like that rather than the federal government making one single policy for this large nation of ours.

That goes for so many other things too (abortion - smoking bans - etc. etc.)

But you're right - the true libertarian policy is to allow people to be free to be assholes. Racist assholes.

Perhaps people need to understand that whenever government tries to solve a problem (perhaps with good intentions) it almost always leads to the problem becoming much worse. Who knows how much LESS racist we would be as a country had they kept their hands off of this stuff. I would imagine many of those racist people from back in the day resented other races all the more once they had to serve them against their will. Who knows how much of that hate has since trickled down through the generations that perhaps would have faded away to a greater degree otherwise.

I will say this - it might be wise as a movement to avoid the subject. This and 9/11 truth. Let's not Medina ourselves

I'm around your age OP (30 years old) and I was around for any of this stuff either. I also wasn't around when Goldwater ran but I've read he only carried the South and pretty much nowhere else in the country because of THIS very issue. I read in his book that he was a strong supporter of civil rights and helping to see all are treated fairly by the GOVERNMENT (the right to vote and so on) but he felt like you do - that people in their private lives and businesses can do as they wish. Well - yadda yadda yadda - he lost so big the neocons took over and haven't looked back to true conservatism since.

So let's be careful with this hot potato.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Move somewhere that doesn't have as many racist businesses?

That's the conclusion I usually come to. But damn, you got to move just go have coffee and toast?

 

[The Patriot]

How can you boycott a business your not allowed in?

Well, in the case of your mother, get her light skinned friend to stop shopping at that store for her. Encourage non blacks who shop there to boycott, set up protests, make people aware. If consumers don't like practices, they will take business elsewhere. If that doesn't work, try to pool money from the community and get some venture capitalists and a local bank to help finance the creation of a local store where black people can shop. But at no point should the Congress be legislating, or any government for that matter, that an owner must accept the business of those he does not wish to be on his property. If the government has the power to force people to associate, then they have the power to prohibit free association and protests. They should have neither power.

 

[coyote_sprit]

How can you boycott a business your not allowed in?

Maybe not but you can convince people who are allowed to abstain, and can also boycott businesses where you are treated as a second rate human (i.e. get to the back of the bus).

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Perhaps people need to understand that whenever government tries to solve a problem (perhaps with good intentions) it almost always leads to the problem becoming much worse. Who knows how much LESS racist we would be as a country had they kept their hands off of this stuff. I would imagine many of those racist people from back in the day resented other races all the more once they had to serve them against their will. Who knows how much of that hate has since trickled down through the generations that perhaps would have faded away to a greater degree otherwise.

Good point, I often tell people that the Civil Rights act also caused a lot of racial resentment and actually heightened the hate. But then again, over time, a lot of racial wounds have been healed because of newer generations getting to associate with each other, and sit at a table to have coffee...and realize, shit, it aint that bad sitting next to a black person (and vice versa).

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Well, in the case of your mother, get her light skinned friend to stop shopping at that store for her. Encourage non blacks who shop there to boycott, set up protests, make people aware. If consumers don't like practices, they will take business elsewhere. If that doesn't work, try to pool money from the community and get some venture capitalists and a local bank to help finance the creation of a local store where black people can shop. But at no point should the Congress be legislating, or any government for that matter, that an owner must accept the business of those he does not wish to be on his property. If the government has the power to force people to associate, then they have the power to prohibit free association and protests. They should have neither power.

But isnt it different when you operate a business that is open to the public. Also, I dont know if this a convincing scenario. In your view, this country would still be highly segregated. Seem life would suck a little more. Unno, guess it's just hard to imagine.

 

[The Patriot]

Good point, I often tell people that the Civil Rights act also caused a lot of racial resentment and actually heightened the hate. But then again, over time, a lot of racial wounds have been healed because of newer generations getting to associate with each other, and sit at a table to have coffee...and realize, shit, it aint that bad sitting next to a black person (and vice versa).

One of my best friends is Latino, I mean, most of my friends are white because I grew up in a well to do suburb, but still. I would not go eat where they let me in because I was white and didn't let him in because he was Latino, and I bet I could get my other white friends to do the same. But I am not going to let my personal animosity cause me to act irrationally by forcing the owner of the restaurant through the heavy hand of the federal government to take customers he would prefer not to associate with.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Usually when I talk to people about me being a libertarian and why I think it's a political ideology that provides the most freedom, they like it up until they bring up civil rights and Jim Crow laws.

I tell them about the Drug Laws which they like, prostitution which they like, free markets and economic freedom which they like, government staying out of your bedroom and your life as long as your not affecting someone else's life, liberty, and property, which they like. State rights...in which they pause.

Then the question comes up.

What's the libertarian stance on the Civil Rights Act and Jim Crow laws?

I tell them that those Jim Crow laws would never have been passed under a libertarian ideology because libertarianism is about judging individuals on their own merits not color. But then they say, still, what about Civil Right, since it basically told business owners that they had to serve people regardless of their race, religion, or sex. I tell them that goes against libertarian principles since that business owner has a right to his own property and to refuse his service to whom ever he wish for whatever reason.

That's where I lose them, and to be honest, it kind of troubles me in some ways. I guess because Im 28 and I have no idea what it is like not being able to go into a restaurant without checking if "Colored People" are allowed, or sitting at the back of the bus, are being denied access to a store or hotel. I am free so I dont know the pain of being denied like that. I ask my mom about, she is 65 and grew up here in the South during the height of the jim crow era and she said how happy she was to be able to go into this store that sells nice clothes finally once the civil rights laws were adopted. She said she used to have to send her mulatto friend (that looked white) in to buy here stuff. I couldn't imagine living like that.

My question is, what would have been the libertarian solution?>

I think you noticed my over abundance of pro Malcolm X posts. Buy black owned. Buy from companies who will sell to you. Those that don't want black people to shop there are bad business people anyway.

Also, bring up the fact that Black people are not being judged fairly through government laws currently. Look at our gun laws. I posted these videos this week as well:

YouTube - No Guns for Negroes Part One
YouTube - No Guns for Negroes Part Two

It's not about race it's about everyone's right.

 

[hugolp]

How can you boycott a business your not allowed in?

My skin is white and I would boicot a racist shop or bussiness.

As for converting people I would avoid that part until people is more into it. I would have rejected that when I was discovering libertarianism. Now I understand. Or you could go the constitutional way and say that its a state issue. Its delicate.

 

[torchbearer]

How can you boycott a business your not allowed in?

talking about others boycotting it.
think about this- to say I won't service anyone with brown skin I have cut my market in half (in my town). how smart is that?

 

[tremendoustie]

How can you boycott a business your not allowed in?

Decent people of all colors should boycott bigots. And picket 'em too.

If there exists the politcal will to pass these kinds of laws, there exists the societal will to accomplish change the right way.

And, on balance, government is far, far more damaging to minorities than otherwise. E.g., war on drugs, biased "justice" system, biased cops, economic policies including the Fed, government "assistance" and housing, which often keeps people down, horrible schools in the cities, etc.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

My skin is white and I would boicot a racist shop or bussiness.

Ok. I understand. There were a number of whites in that day that did that, of course they were branded "nigger lovers" or probably shunned by the community. For you to do now, wouldnt be a big deal because we live in a society where out right racism is shunned, but back then, if you sided with the blacks you were the one being shunned. I dont know if there are enough brave souls to make a difference.

Just brought this up as conversation. I like this site and you guys bring interesting points of views. .

 

[phill4paul]

I guess it comes down to what is considered private and what is considered public.

I believe government buildings, transportation etc. are public. Meaning that anyone is free to use them.

I believe that establishments owned by individuals are private in that the owner has the right to refuse service to whom they choose.

A bus is public transportation, payed for by tax payers, and therefore everyone is free to use it without restrictions.

An establishment created by an individual, bought and payed for by said individual, may have restrictions.

Many "black" individuals made a pretty nice living serving those of their ethnicity prior to civil rights era.
There were lawyers, doctors, dentists etc. that served their communities and thrived in the process.

I believe that a business is a private institution. EVEN if it excludes me.

Being a smoker I see the effects of becoming a societal pariah. N.C. has just banned smoking in "public" establishments which include individually owned restaurants and bars.

I guess I'll sum it up with this story:

When I was going to Navy Air Traffic Control School in Milpitas I took occasion to go to Beale Street in Memphis since I was a blues lover.

Beale Street was good. Street Musicians were much better than the staid clubs.

One night I glanced down an ally and saw a set of stairs that had a small pink neon sign at the top that said "open".
As we approached the landing I could hear some of the best blues I had heard on my entire journey up and down Beale.

We walked into this place and as the door closed behind us it became a scene out of a movie. The band quit. Silence. All heads turned our way.

My two friends and I had walked into a social gathering of individuals in which our race was not represented.
My friends immediately felt threatened and tugged at me to leave, but seeing a nearby table I ushered them to it and sat down.
The place remained dead quite and all eyes were upon us. Snickering and whispers could be heard. After what seemed like an eternity the owner
walked over to our table and ask what we'd like to drink.
It was as if a spell had been lifted and the band started up and everyone else went back to their business.
The business being rotational sets by at least one individual from every table in the house!
To this day it is the single best music event I have ever had the privilege to attend.

I say the privilege because it was the owners right to allow me to stay. I'm glad he did.

However, if he would have asked us to leave I would have left. Plain and simple. It was HIS establishment. It wasn't his patrons establishment.
They clearly didn't like the fact that we had invaded "their" space. It wasn't up to them. It was up to HIM.

So leave it to the individual that has to pay the bills. The one that has to decide who to allow or revoke and still earn enough to keep their business open and make a living.

If your not welcome someplace. Leave. Spend your money elsewhere and tell those that are like you where to spend their money.

Since the N.C. ban on smoking in "public" establishments private clubs have prospered. The local V.F.W. has almost doubled it's membership. LOL.

"Public" is government run tax payer supported enterprise. "Private" is individual owners that put up the funds to create a business and rely income to survive.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

^^^Good story and points.

 

[Catatonic]

This is the way I pose it -

Racism is a problem of society. The government (authority) should NEVER been seen as a way to fix society's problems. You can tie that into the other things you mentioned, like the 'drug war'.

Drug abuse is a societal issue, and what happens when you bring in authority to fix it? The problem gets worse! Its exactly the same concept as thinking we can go to the middle east and point guns at everyone, and expect them to love us for it.

As for what should be done about it, if people are upset by Jim Crow laws, they should seek to change them. One person can't do it alone, and thats why people look to an authority figure, but I stress that taking the easy way out is not a good way to get the results you want. Activism is the answer. That is how MLK won the push for civil rights in the first place, and it is a shame that his work was tarnished by a government coming in and creating some BS law after the fact. MLK wasn't pushing for legal or government reform, he was pushing for societal reform.

If people want to be racist, its important to let them be racist. It will hurt them in the end. Making laws that create separate rules based on race only increases feelings of segregation and resentment; in other words, its counter productive. You can force society to wear a fake smile and play by the rules, but beneath the surface, you're causing the ideologies you despise to grow.

I generally finish by stating the hardest part of living in a free country is standing up for the rights of people who's ideas you have serious moral objections to, like racists, but it helps to keep in mind that infringing on their rights when they have not infringed on mine is unfair and will cause more harm than good in the end.

Hope this helps, I've actually shut down a lot of anti-libertarian rants with this topic. Its all in how you present it.

 

[SimpleName]

...Perhaps people need to understand that whenever government tries to solve a problem (perhaps with good intentions) it almost always leads to the problem becoming much worse. Who knows how much LESS racist we would be as a country had they kept their hands off of this stuff. I would imagine many of those racist people from back in the day resented other races all the more once they had to serve them against their will. Who knows how much of that hate has since trickled down through the generations that perhaps would have faded away to a greater degree otherwise...

That may be a convincing argument to those that are on the margin with the civil rights act. I'd imagine the laws only fueled the racists of the time to become more ardently anti-black (or anti-other race). Anger, in this case misdirected, is an almost definite effect when force is used against someone.

I would also suggest, as you did elsewhere in the post, to stay away from it unless we are dealing with someone who is already libertarian. It is definitive anti-property legislation, but lets not destroy our message before it is even understood.