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

[sofia]

Property rights and individual rights are more sacred than the "right" to not have one's feelings hurt.

Ask these people this: If a sucessful black male on a dating website, indicates he is seeking a black female for a serious relationship....should white women be able to file a lawsuit against him for discrimination?

Should the government shut down the dating site?

Should the government fine him?

And then arrest him if he fails to show up in court or pay the fine?

And then possibly kill him if he dares to resist arrest?

 

[MRoCkEd]

I say don't even bring this issue up... start with areas of agreement and as they learn more they will come to the right conclusions about the tough issues on their own

 

[phill4paul]

Property rights and individual rights are more sacred than the "right" to not have one's feelings hurt.

Ask these people this: If a sucessful black male on a dating website, indicates he is seeking a black female for a serious relationship....should white women be able to file a lawsuit against him for discrimination?

Should the government shut down the dating site?

Should the government fine him?

And then arrest him if he fails to show up in court or pay the fine?

And then possibly kill him if he dares to resist arrest?

Interesting....yes...indeed.

 

[RM918]

Honestly, I don't think the government should be involved with social or business things like that. If there's really such a demand for white only or black only places and they think they can take the social consequences of such a move, let them. Hispanic only, male only, Pacific Islander only, whatever. Values, unless they deliberately take something away from someone else, should not be legislated. They should remain something for society to deal with.

If people are really sincere about their devotion to racial equality, they'll treat the owners like racists and so what, if they want to huddle together and bitch about people with different shades of skin, so what? It won't be popular, it's not like you'll see white only sections at Wal-Mart. In the end, it just seems to me like people would just rather use the government to harass people with juvenile impulses like that just because they don't agree with them.

If you get rid of the regulations now, and you honestly expect some societies in some states to roll back race relations 50 years immediately afterward, then what's the point of forcing them to accept it? Is it really ever going to change, or just end up getting worse? You can no sooner stamp out prejudice via government force than you can terrorism.

 

[BillyDkid]

It really pisses me off that people give credit to the government for protecting civil rights. It was MLK and the people who marched on Selma and Rosa Parks who gave us civil rights and government only came kicking and screaming. I believe and business who is stupid enough to turn away customers on the basis of race deserves to fail - and they would have if they hadn't changed with or without government. That being said, however stupid and insane it is for private businesses to discriminate with respect to who they serve or don't serve, they should have that right. Government services - transportation and the rest - are another story.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

If black people weren't allowed to buy things at the white store... Why didn't they start their own businesses to serve black customers?

I might have started a business to serve both markets. Sure the racists would boycott me, and maybe even protest or vandalize. The question is whether the government is neutral enough to prosecute vandals regardless of which side they're on.

Seems like it would be a good market if the demand was there.

 

[phill4paul]

If black people weren't allowed to buy things at the white store... Why didn't they start their own businesses to serve black customers?

Contrary to History lessons they did.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Contrary to History lessons they did.

So what was the problem if the goods were still available? What difference does it make which store you buy them at?

I totally get government service things. A public bus, public schools, public water fountains, yeah, integration was deserved. But private business? Ridiculous.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

So what was the problem if the goods were still available? What difference does it make which store you buy them at?

I totally get government service things. A public bus, public schools, public water fountains, yeah, integration was deserved. But private business? Ridiculous.

Well the difference is, the economic system was set up to where blacks were pretty much locked out. Sure, there were some black stores, but a lot of times they had limited stock because they couldnt conduct business with grocery suppliers, or couldnt expand because banks would not loan to blacks. Also, you have to realize its easy for you to say "well just go somewhere else" I asked my mother about this, when she was growing up, she said the only grocery store that allowed blacks to shop there was 2 miles away, and the white grocery store was only right around the corner, across the tracks. But they had to walk 2 miles for groceries which she hated because her dad would always make her do grocery runs lol.

There were also cases where blacks did set up thriving economic communites....then shit like this happens....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

YouTube - 1921 Tulsa Race Riot:Survivors & Decendants Recall ART ONE

 

[silus]

how can you boycott a business your not allowed in?

lol.

 

[phill4paul]

Well the difference is, the economic system was set up to where blacks were pretty much locked out. Sure, there were some black stores, but a lot of times they had limited stock because they couldnt conduct business with grocery suppliers, or couldnt expand because banks would not loan to blacks. Also, you have to realize its easy for you to say "well just go somewhere else" I asked my mother about this, when she was growing up, she said the only grocery store that allowed blacks to shop there was 2 miles away, and the white grocery store was only right around the corner, across the tracks. But they had to walk 2 miles for groceries which she hated because her dad would always make her do grocery runs lol.

There were also cases where blacks did set up thriving economic communites....then shit like this happens....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

YouTube - 1921 Tulsa Race Riot:Survivors & Decendants Recall ART ONE

I do not disagree that the playing field was slanted. Indeed it was.

However, consider this...

At the time those that held power in the South relied on slave labor to sustain themselves and their power.
Those in the North did not treat their workers with any better resolve.
Anyone that believes the industrialized North treated their workers with better conditions than those of the South have not read accounts of workers of that time period.

Rape...It happened all the time, North or South. Whether it is through slave ownership or force through the subjects need does not matter.

Beatings...North and South...doesn't matter. Whether black or Irish.

It comes down to it is all bullshit.

North or South..individuals suffered.

Those in the North of pale skin..were excluded.. because of religion, nationality, politics.

Blacks are not exclusive with regards to "isms"

 

[silus]

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

Then where would you shop? Its so easy for you to say that here and now.

Property rights and individual rights are more sacred than the "right" to not have one's feelings hurt.

Ask these people this: If a sucessful black male on a dating website, indicates he is seeking a black female for a serious relationship....should white women be able to file a lawsuit against him for discrimination?

Should the government shut down the dating site?

Should the government fine him?

And then arrest him if he fails to show up in court or pay the fine?

And then possibly kill him if he dares to resist arrest?

Probably the worst analogy I have ever seen.

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?>

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!

done.

 

[phill4paul]

Then where would you shop? Its so easy for you to say that here and now.

Blacks had there own shops. They had there own doctors. They had there own dentists. Many more were achieving the necessary knowledge to serve their own community.

Get out of the history books that have been written for their own purpose.

Yes it is easier today. However, has the situation been resolved?

 

[specsaregood]

Probably the worst analogy I have ever seen.

Not really, it is actually somewhat relevent. Just last year there was a "christian" dating website that got sued by the state of NJ because they didn't allow an option for gays. The state won and the website owners had to change their business model and create a whole new gay dating section. I have no problem with gays, but I think a business owner should be able to choose who they do business with as long as they aren't accepting government money.

 

[silus]

Then where would you shop? Its so easy for you to say that here and now.

Blacks had there own shops. They had there own doctors. They had there own dentists. Many more were achieving the necessary knowledge to serve their own community.

Again, easy for you to say here and now. If you were white and did not alter your lifestyle significantly, you could not follow through on a complete boycott of a racist shops or businesses. This is not a difficult argument to make here.

Yes it is easier today. However, has the situation been resolved?

Advice: To talk in terms of absolutes is to never see anything but two conditions. And the only time people speak in those terms is when they need to sustain or support an already weak argument.

 

[jmdrake]

Tough question. The first thing you need to understand is the "constitutional principle" that the civil rights act is based on. This is a bastardization of the interstate commerce clause. Basically this is what happened. During the great depression FDR passed a lot of unconstitutional laws based on the idea that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. In a very famous case, Wickard v. Filburn, the supreme court ruled that the federal government could fine a farmer for growing "excess wheat" to feed to his own family and cattle because in the aggregate his action might have an effect on interstate commerce. What he was doing wasn't commerce or interstate. But that's the way the court ruled. The civil rights act was based on this crap. The 14th amendment allowed the federal government to strike down discrimination by the states, but not discrimination by private actors.

By the way, it's still possible to run a business that discriminates on the basis of race. For instance, up until the 1980s the Shoal Creek country club near Birmingham Alabama was whites only. Then Shoal Creek landed the PGA golf tournament. When it came out that no blacks were allowed, groups threatened to boycott the sponsors of the PGA tour. Shoal Creek quickly changed its policy and found a "token" to join. After that the PGA officially changed its rules not to use country clubs that discriminated on the basis of race. (That's an answer to a question of how do you boycott a business that already doesn't allow blacks. You boycott the people who patronize the business).

Something else to consider. Some black leaders weren't keen on the whole integration thing to begin with. I was at a lecture last year where the author contended that some members of the NAACP in Atlanta were concerned over the effect on black businesses if white only stores had to open up to black clients. (I forget the name of the book, but I'll try to post it tomorrow). I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Dr. King had launched a competitive bus line instead of just boycotting.

Anyway, in a nutshell, if you don't like the idea that the government can tell you how much wheat you can grow then you are undermining the authority of the civil rights act.

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?>

 

[jmdrake]

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

Well for better or for worse Ron Paul has already taken a position against the civil rights act so it's kind of unavoidable. You don't have to bring it up. (I don't). But if you're supporting Ron Paul it's something you'll have to deal with sooner or later.

 

[RM918]

Like I said earlier, what's the point for all this hand-wringing about racism if you really think a significant proportion of people - in 2010 - would immediately revert to the days of To Kill a Mockingbird if given the opportunity? That is a pretty troubling reality, and one that I doubt could be solved by continuing government coercion. I don't think it'd happen, even if the laws were stripped away I don't see too much of society going back that far. If anything, getting rid of government force against bigotry will finally open an honest discussion about race in this country. So long as all are treated equally under the law, along with everyone's property rights, I don't see how it can revert back to Jim Crow.

 

[belian78]

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.

^^this

this is the thing i try so hard to make people understand about this issue. economically, it would be impossible in this day and age for any business/state to have racist policies. they may want to, they may try, but eventually they will go bankrupt if they dont change.

it's hard to get people to accept that you are dealing with a social issue through economic means, but in reality its the only sure fire way.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Great thread and great responses guys.