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

[phill4paul]

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.

Here and now I live with discrimination. Obviously you did not read my entire thread which linked racism to contemporary societal stigmas such as smokers vs. non-smokers.
But wait, your next argument will be that these are two separate things, not so.

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.

When I speak of absolutes I see only one condition. Liberty. I do not see the argument that individual business owners to conduct their business as they see fit to be a weak one.

 

[silus]

Here and now I live with discrimination. Obviously you did not read my entire thread which linked racism to contemporary societal stigmas such as smokers vs. non-smokers.

Not sure what you are talking about here. I made a point to hugolp and you jumped in with a response. Which is why it didnt make sense from the beginning with your talk about black owned businesses... The original point was about a white person in those times being able to completely boycott racist shops and businesses.

When I speak of absolutes I see only one condition. Liberty.

Sweet line and all, but you asked if the situation had been resolved or not as rational to support your point. If you want to talk about liberty you weren't doing it there. :shrug

 

[phill4paul]

Not sure what you are talking about here. I made a point to hugolp and you jumped in with a response. Which is why it didnt make sense from the beginning with your talk about black owned businesses... The original point was about a white person in those times being able to completely boycott racist shops and businesses.


Sweet line and all, but you asked if the situation had been resolved or not as rational to support your point. If you want to talk about liberty you weren't doing it there. :shrug

Good rebuttals :shrug

 

[silus]

Yeaayeayeayeaaa, lalalallalalallalalaaaaaa....Naaanaaaannananannannananaaanannaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

 

[reardenstone]

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. .

I would just say that the movement started with people anyway and beside, what does it matter now? It's history. There is no need to do anything about it now.

 

[Working Poor]

Any good business person would be out of their minds to not sell what ever their goods are to blacks.
Unless the product would harm the group of people if they bought it. I would think they are not many products like that.

I think liberty minded people ought have no problem with anyone because of the color of their skin. I think liberty minded people need to work on that real hard and talk about it because until it works out this is a stain on us. If we want liberty and fredom to win that is.

Mankind talks about evolution when are we going to grow up or evole into a real higher life form?

 

[phill4paul]

Mankind talks about evolution when are we going to grow up or evole into a real higher life form?

Some would say that we are created in Gods image and that evolution is just a theory.


Edit: sorry guess that is for another thread...back to topic.

 

[johngr]

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

Negro businessmen can't make coffee and toast?

 

[johngr]

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

The main reason banks were able to negatively affect Negro businesses was because of legal tender laws. With no income tax and no FED, that problem would not exist in a true free market in money.

And even in such a climate, Negroes were able to start their own insurance company.

http://www.ncmutuallife.com/newsite/videos/past_present_future.html

 

[johngr]

I think liberty minded people ought have no problem with anyone because of the color of their skin.

I certainly don't. I'd rather be the only European living in a Dravidian neighborhood than in South Philly, Detroit, Compton, or any other "black" neighborhood in the US. That preference has to do with observation of general behavioral and temperamental patterns and nothing to do with "skin color".

 

[johngr]

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

You would not be alone. An unfortunate consequence of far greater outgroup altruism among peoples of European descent. I hope at least that you are not naïve enough to believe that Negros would boycott businesses that deal exclusively with Negros.

 

[hugolp]

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. .

Well, my girlfriend is black, so I would not have much choice, would I? What can I say? I am a proud "nigger lover"

But it is true that it is easier now, and its imposible to know if I would be dating a black girl in that time. I am not sure, but I think Thomas Jefferson was dating one of his slave and he took her to France as if it was his woman.

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

As I said my girlfriend is black and here in Spain we are not so used to black people or black-white couples. We had a fascist goverment 30 years ago and there is still a lot of fascist nostalgia. You dont see any black-white couple, so when I go with my girlfriend all eyes are on us. It felt weird at the beggining but now if I dont pay attention I dont notice it. I had people on the street shouting us things a couple of times. Some of my friends have confesed me that they would never date a black girl but are trying to understand me. My grandfather is fascist (he supported Franco, the spanish dictator) and it he had a hard time accepting it. Etc... The worst part is that I feel a lot of people think that I am stupid for dating a black girl and that I am doing it because I can not get anything "better". That is the part that hurst me more. I can deal with the front-up racism, but this low-level racism gets to me.

Granted it is not as hard as it might has been back then, but dont tell me bullshit about not knowing how it feels.

And btw, I've found out that black people is very very racist (in a different way obviusly).

By the way, it's still possible to run a business that discriminates on the basis of race.

Is this true? So the law only affects to public services and buildings? That actually makes sense, since the goverment should not be allowed to be racist.

This makes the argument a lot easier.

And I want to finish with:

Black girls...

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Whether or not the Civil Rights Act is needed today and whether or not it was needed back in 1964 are two separate questions. It would be like looking at Canada, deciding "they look fine to me" and concluding the revolutionary war was unnecessary. Could the same results have been achieved without the CRA? I don't know. Certainly the Jim Crow laws needed to be abolished. The state forcing people apart should never be allowed. It's hard to say how the market would have played out after that. Sure stores that excluded blacks would have lost money, but stores that allowed blacks might have back then lost a bigger share of white business. We'll never now how it would have totally played out. But the worst thing is that it legitimized the abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

 

[teamrican1]

During the Civil Rights Debates Barry Goldwater sagely noted that the negro has as much need for the Constitution as anybody else, and probably more so. 50 years of experience have proven the validity of Goldwater's words. The gross expansion of the Federal police state that the passage of the blatantly unconstitutional Civil Rights Amendments ushered in have created a world where most black cities are treated like occupied territories.

If you are having trouble making the libertarian position for race, please direct people to Ayn Rand's essay "Racism", which is probably the most effective summary of the liberty position on race ever written:

Racism

 

[Mike4Freedom]

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.

That was in that generation. In todays generation there is a lot less racial tension. If a store tried to ban groups of people based on thier skin color, it would be all over the news and that business would be in for a lot of lost revenue.

Racial tensions that existed back then take generations to go away.

The government just tried to speed it up and I believe they hurt things when they did that.

For example, with affirmative action, a lot of people I work with have a lot of resentment about anyone that gets promoted because of it.

So now if anyone that is not white gets promoted everyone is angry about it, in most cases they have earned it, but this creates anomosity and tension.

So to get back to my point, that when government stays out of things it allows them to fix themselves. It might take longer but it will be fixed the right way.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

That was in that generation. In todays generation there is a lot less racial tension. If a store tried to ban groups of people based on thier skin color, it would be all over the news and that business would be in for a lot of lost revenue.

Racial tensions that existed back then take generations to go away.

The government just tried to speed it up and I believe they hurt things when they did that.

For example, with affirmative action, a lot of people I work with have a lot of resentment about anyone that gets promoted because of it.

So now if anyone that is not white gets promoted everyone is angry about it, in most cases they have earned it, but this creates animosity and tension.

So to get back to my point, that when government stays out of things it allows them to fix themselves. It might take longer but it will be fixed the right way.

Well I have no qualms with you about Affirmative Action. Anytime I feel out an application I skip the EOE portion where they ask you race because I feel you either hire me on my qualifications or don't hire me at all. Needless to say, I've never had a problem with employment (knock on wood) and have been working since I was 15 non stop.

Im a big fan of Booker T Washington and he was a big advocate of hard work and building yourself up, and not relying on the State to help you. Unfortunately he ridiculed by the Black Academics Elites and Liberals as a sell out for his focus on hard work and economic freedom rather than liberal arts education and political action. To me, this was very damaging.

 

[bobbyw24]

It's Richard Epstein's Fault!!

FORBIDDEN GROUNDS
The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws
RICHARD EPSTEIN

This timely and controversial book presents powerful theoretical and empirical arguments for the repeal of the anti-discrimination laws within the workplace. Richard Epstein demonstrates that these laws set one group against another, impose limits on freedom of choice, unleash bureaucratic excesses, mandate inefficient employment practices, and cause far more invidious discrimination than they prevent. Epstein urges a return to the now-rejected common law principles of individual autonomy that permit all persons to improve their position through trade, contract, and bargain, free of government constraint.

Professor Richard Epstein reflects on his book Forbidden Grounds


"This timely and controversial book presents powerful theoretical and empirical arguments for the repeal of the anti-discrimination laws within the workplace. Richard Epstein demonstrates that these laws set one group against another, impose limits on freedom of choice, unleash bureaucratic excesses, mandate inefficient employment practices, and cause far more invidious discrimination than they prevent. Epstein urges a return to the now-rejected common law principles of individual autonomy that permit all persons to improve their position through trade, contract, and bargain, free of government constraint."



Born: 1943.
Education: A.B., 1964, Columbia College; B.A., 1966, Oxford University; LL.B., 1968, Yale University.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

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?>

There wasn't a race problem in New Orleans until the government stepped in. Afterwards, there existed African American businesses where African Americans weren't allowed into them if their complexion was darker than a shade of brown exhibited at the front of the establishment.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well I have no qualms with you about Affirmative Action. Anytime I feel out an application I skip the EOE portion where they ask you race because I feel you either hire me on my qualifications or don't hire me at all. Needless to say, I've never had a problem with employment (knock on wood) and have been working since I was 15 non stop.

Im a big fan of Booker T Washington and he was a big advocate of hard work and building yourself up, and not relying on the State to help you. Unfortunately he ridiculed by the Black Academics Elites and Liberals as a sell out for his focus on hard work and economic freedom rather than liberal arts education and political action. To me, this was very damaging.

We can't afford distractions. In order to maintain our focus, we have to understand just how much of a disadvantage we are to tyranny. They've been pimping us forever and they are rather good at it. But see, I'm not talking about black people being pimped by white people, with that being just a work of fiction, but tyranny persecuting the people even before the time of Christ. If it isn't persecuted black people universally representing the persecuted people, then its garbage to me to be ignored. This is serious as they know us better than we know ourselves being smarter than we are, having gone to college to learn what buttons to push to get us to fight amongst ourselves. They get business educations, they officially graduate, and then they set about pimping. It has to be the only graduation party where everyone sits around laughing about how useless the education was.

 

[fisharmor]

It is actually as simple as competition. If businesses don't cater to negroes (I'm all for resurrecting that term, johngr) then there is economic incentive to create your own store that does. If suppliers don't cater to those negro clientele businesses, then there is economic incentive to create your own suppliers. If farms don't cater to negro supplying suppliers, then there is economic incentive to create negro farms.

Go down the list, and I'll make a million dollar bet you'll find roadblocks that were put into place to prevent those things from happening. In that sense, I agree with Malcolm X's idea that the problem was systemic, and that simply creating their own country would be the most expedient measure.

Listen, I've been thinking of picking up some extra money making medieval armor reproductions for grown-up geeks who like to hit each other with sticks. In that incredibly miniscule niche market, there are at least a couple dozen people who make this stuff professionally, and there's still more work than people to do it. So you can't tell me that feeding and clothing negroes is an unprofitable business model, no matter what era we're talking about - unless you are up against severe state sponsored resistance to it.

This is the answer right here:

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?

Bottom line, no matter what "crime" we're talking about: are you ultimately willing to bless the state's on-the-spot killing of a person for the crime in question?
If not, then I submit that it ought not to be a law to be enforced by the state.