Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I Apologize to My Fellow Americans
#41
(01-28-2017, 11:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 08:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm not particularly an expert in libertarianism.  I guess I'll have to ask others on the forum who think of themselves as libertarian to confirm or deny Galen's assertion.  Does libertarian thought necessarily demand the right to discriminate?  Is bigotry an inherent aspect of libertarianism?

Everyone demands the right to discriminate, not just libertarians.  No one thinks they should be denied a choice in the race of the person they marry.  No one thinks that gays should be required to accept dates from straight people and vice versa.  In those cases, everyone accepts the libertarian belief in the right of free association.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that people can't deny offers to go on a date.  The area I'm most concerned with is when a prejudiced individual is supplying goods and services to the public.  Can such an individual provide services selectively by race, gender, culture, etc...

I will note that the current legal blocks against prejudice do not apply to churches, private homes and private clubs.  Thus Augusta National as a private club denied membership to women and minorities for a long time.

Certainly, the principle of free association has much merit in most to all private interactions, but a culture conflict erupts when one is supplying goods and services to the public.

(01-28-2017, 11:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I think most strict libertarians would tend to side with Galen on this issue:  people should be allowed to conduct business with who they want, without government intervention.  Without laws passed by the state requiring segregation, probably all libertarians believe that competition would have put businesses wasting space on segregated lunch counters out of business, in favor of more efficient businesses that used a single lunch counter for all their customers.

I disagree with your spin on history.  Jim Crow, the KKK, the Nazis...  Bigots remain problematic until and unless decent people force them to behave.

In a world where everyone followed libertarian values, perhaps, as you say, economic considerations would triumph over bigotry.  The problem would go away.  However, if everyone followed Communist values, or Nazi values, or fundamentalist Islamic values, there would be no problems.  Any hypothetical mono culture might be utopian if only every single individual bought into the same mono culture.  Alas, in the real world, an assumption that everyone will buy into the same culture is absurd.

(01-28-2017, 11:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Personally I'm more toward the minarchist side and further away from the pure anarchocapitalist side.  While I agree that things would most likely work out fine under Galen's model, I'm okay with a local government - under the fiction that the government is a voluntary organization - having licensing laws that require businesses to serve all customers.

I don't assert that governments are voluntary.  Humans are social animals.  They claim territory, form groups, make up rules, enforce said rules over the breadth of their territories, etc...  Humans have been doing this for a long time.  I see it as in their DNA.  While humans are capable of learning and teaching cultures, which makes them different from other animals who can't do so, humans are political animals.

Libertarians asserting a 'right to freely associate' and pushing for rules that say there shall be no rules are still human.  They have a culture and will press to enforce their culture on everyone else.  I can often sympathize with much of what they desire.  I still prefer the 'power of the majority is trumped only by the rights of the individual' model.

(01-28-2017, 11:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: However, I'm not okay with the government violating first amendment rights by requiring the bakers to put a swastika or a congratulatory message for a gay couple on the cake if they don't want to.  The customer who wants those things on his cake can go to a like minded baker, or buy a blank cake and put the decoration on himself.

This would be my preferred common sense solution, assuming the second nearest baker isn't a zillion miles away.  However, it can turn into private individuals censoring speech that conflicts with their prejudices.  The First Amendment can be applied the other way.  My own culture suggests that tolerance is the proper solution, just as the libertarian values focus on economics.  I don't know that we will agree.
Reply
#42
(01-28-2017, 11:41 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 11:28 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 06:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.

A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Prior to the awakening, especially in the south, overt blatant prejudice was hard wired into the culture.  People of color could not stay in many hotels, eat at many restaurants, use many sanitary facilities, drink at certain water bubblers, etc...  The sit in at the Woolworth lunch counter where blacks were refused service became a symbol of this sort of behavior.  The Supreme Court and various laws passed by Congress made this sort of overt prejudice illegal.  Many have come to understand that if one offers a service to the public, one has to provide that service to the People.

This wasn't because the businesses wanted to segregate nonwhites, though.  It was because the Democrats had passed laws requiring segregation.  Most businesses would have preferred not to have to go to the expense of separate facilities.

Do you have a source on that?  From all accounts I've red on the time period, bigotry far outweighed profits on this issue.  One followed the tradition of segregation or one lost one's white business.  The desire to keep bigot business was a much more dominant economic motivation than the cost of maintaining the extra facilities.

I thought it was well known that segregation was enforced by law, but here's a source.  It's not a great source, so if you are skeptical about such laws, we might have to find a more reliable one:

These laws meant that black people were legally required to:

• attend separate schools and churches
• use public bathrooms marked “for colored only”
• eat in a separate section of a restaurant
• sit in the rear of a bus

http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/era...gregation/

For a successful business owner, bigotry can't outweigh profits; if you don't make a profit, you go out of business.  Based on discussions with people who ran businesses during that period, white bigots weren't enough to sustain a business, and they made more money on the black customers anyway; thus why they had segregated lunch counters rather than merely having all white restaurants.  And of course if businesses would have voluntarily segregated anyway, why would a law be needed?

Note that all white restaurants continued to be legal if they were organized as membership clubs.  They didn't become common because there weren't enough bigots to sustain them - or at least, not enough bigots willing to put their money where their mouths were.

Market forces would have done a fine job of equalization, if they had been allowed to operate without government interference.
Reply
#43
(01-28-2017, 11:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 08:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 08:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote: A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Now, I would disagree that Gary Johnson is the only libertarian who is not a bigot.  It is possible to believe in the financial notion of unencumbered free markets and the political principle of small non-interfering government without being a bigot.  In this, I believe Galen should speak for himself.

You really don't understand do you?  Libertarianism recognizes the right of free association which also means that people have the right to choose who they don't associate with.  There is no double think involved here.  It is simply not the government's place to tell people who they may or may not associate with.  If people truly are bigoted then no amount of external force will change this.  Indeed, it will create resentment that will eventually express itself in a violent manner most likely.

I'm not particularly an expert in libertarianism.  I guess I'll have to ask others on the forum who think of themselves as libertarian to confirm or deny Galen's assertion.  Does libertarian thought necessarily demand the right to discriminate?  Is bigotry an inherent aspect of libertarianism?

Everyone demands the right to discriminate, not just libertarians.  No one thinks they should be denied a choice in the race of the person they marry.  No one thinks that gays should be required to accept dates from straight people and vice versa.  In those cases, everyone accepts the libertarian belief in the right of free association.

I think most strict libertarians would tend to side with Galen on this issue:  people should be allowed to conduct business with who they want, without government intervention.  Without laws passed by the state requiring segregation, probably all libertarians believe that competition would have put businesses wasting space on segregated lunch counters out of business, in favor of more efficient businesses that used a single lunch counter for all their customers.

Personally I'm more toward the minarchist side and further away from the pure anarchocapitalist side.  While I agree that things would most likely work out fine under Galen's model, I'm okay with a local government - under the fiction that the government is a voluntary organization - having licensing laws that require businesses to serve all customers.

However, I'm not okay with the government violating first amendment rights by requiring the bakers to put a swastika or a congratulatory message for a gay couple on the cake if they don't want to.  The customer who wants those things on his cake can go to a like minded baker, or buy a blank cake and put the decoration on himself.

A business owner has a reasonable right to refuse to do business that he can reasonably expect to get him into trouble. If my business sells fuels, then I will never knowingly sell an accelerant to an arsonist,  do vehicle repairs to the car of a known fugitive, or knowingly rent a room for the night to someone involved in drug trafficking. I'm not going to become an accomplice in a crime.  If I am a businessman and I am black or Jewish I might be loath to launder a Klan robe or Nazi attire unless it is for a benign purpose (such as theatrical use or a historical exhibit). On the other side on this sort of political discrimination, I would not expect a Klansman or neo-Nazi  to bring his laundry to me if my surname is an obvious derivative of "Cohen" or "Levi" or I have 'too much' melanin in my complexion.

Customers have the obvious right to discriminate unless they are the government (thus a school board cannot  even ask a prospective schoolteacher about homosexuality or religion) or are such big players in the local economy that they can make or break a small business. The school district can ask about a criminal record, so if a prospective school teacher has been convicted of sex with a minor, then the school district can reject the hire on that basis alone.

As an employer I have an obvious interest in keeping my business place attractive to customers and economically efficient enough to allow a profit. If I own a bakery, I do not expect the person who frosts the cakes to know much about business law; such knowledge ordinarily indicates someone with a college education who might not be as cheap a hire as someone who has 'only' a high-school education or might still be in high school. A high school dropout? I would be leery, as dropping out of school suggests low intelligence (and little ability to do the work) or rebelliousness. I might have to hire, for lack of alternatives, a bigot who knows enough to not use overt smears on the job.

Part of the job of baking a cake is frosting it... as a business owner I am not going to supply a cake  that reminds a child to remain loyal to the white race or suggests pedophilia is out of the question. Neither will I put obscene language or depictions of sexuality on the cake. I am not going to insult anyone based upon ethnicity or religion, and one group that I am unwilling to offend is Bible-believing Christians who could be the bulk of my customers in my location. The baker who feels leery about a wedding cake for a same-sex, interfaith, or mixed-race couple might leave the finishing touches to me. I will put the names "Gary and Larry" or "Susan and Eve", or the statuette of a same-sex or mixed couple on the cake. But that baker had better bake the cake and go as far as possible in completing the cake.

Oh, yes -- you know what I think of the President. A celebratory cake for the election of Senator Snake is not out of the question.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#44
(01-28-2017, 12:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I thought it was well known that segregation was enforced by law, but here's a source.  It's not a great source, so if you are skeptical about such laws, we might have to find a more reliable one:

I don't question that there were laws in place.  The bigots had a working majority.  Of course they passed such laws.

(01-28-2017, 12:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: For a successful business owner, bigotry can't outweigh profits;

Bigotry was good for business.  If one followed the local traditions, one got more business than if one didn't.  There is nothing in the history books about second bathrooms and bubblers being abandoned, about restaurants and hotels spontaneously abandoning segregation due to economics or libertarian theory, of the southern states repealing the Jim Crow laws.  These are all figments of your values locked imagination.  MLK and LBJ should get credit for what happened, not Ayn Rand.

You remind me of Kinser denying Stalin's and Mao's famines.  You are putting your political and economic theories over the history of what actually happened.  Bigotry and segregation existed.  They went away due to a mostly non-violent series of protests resulting in government action.

(01-28-2017, 12:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Market forces would have done a fine job of equalization, if they had been allowed to operate without government interference.

I see this as libertarian doctrine with nothing to do with history.  Segregation went away due to government interference.  There is nothing to suggest that market forces were going to effect things at all any time soon.  Your theory that someday hatred and bigotry would have eventually faded away has as much validity as the Marxist notion that the state would wither away.  Bigots hate.  They will continue to hate until they are stopped.

Libertarian freedom of association is to a great extent just another ploy to justify the hate continuing.
Reply
#45
(01-28-2017, 08:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 08:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 06:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.

A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Now, I would disagree that Gary Johnson is the only libertarian who is not a bigot.  It is possible to believe in the financial notion of unencumbered free markets and the political principle of small non-interfering government without being a bigot.  In this, I believe Galen should speak for himself.

You really don't understand do you?  Libertarianism recognizes the right of free association which also means that people have the right to choose who they don't associate with.  There is no double think involved here.  It is simply not the government's place to tell people who they may or may not associate with.  If people truly are bigoted then no amount of external force will change this.  Indeed, it will create resentment that will eventually express itself in a violent manner most likely.

I'm not particularly an expert in libertarianism.  I guess I'll have to ask others on the forum who think of themselves as libertarian to confirm or deny Galen's assertion.  Does libertarian thought necessarily demand the right to discriminate?  Is bigotry an inherent aspect of libertarianism?

I do understand that forcing bigots to respect the rights and equality of others is a long slow tedious process.  It will indeed create resentment.  However, it is part of US culture to push the long slow tedious movement towards equality.  Over the years, the United States has applied external force to the Confederates, the KKK, Hitler's Nazis, the segregationists of the mid 20th Century, those who believed in a cultural imperative to keep females in a inferior role, and more recently in those with irrational prejudiced against those with non-traditional gender relationships.

The bigots of any era will be able to convince themselves of their inherent superiority and their right to keep others in their place.  Sometimes, the places the minorities belonged were in gas chambers or dangling from southern trees.  Those who object to such hatred and bigotry have for centuries been applying 'external force' and have made tremendous changes.  This generation's bigots seem unable to comprehend this history, which makes them no different from prior generations of bigots.  As a fundamentalist cannot allow himself to comprehend evolution, a bigot will engage in double think to believe their own hatreds and prejudices are somehow different than what has come before.
Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.
Reply
#46
(01-28-2017, 11:24 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 11:53 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 10:02 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 09:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The John Birch Society, long considered extreme and ludicrous to conservatives, has stayed as far to the Right as possible without delving into calls for genocide (including enslavement or extermination) except perhaps against Communists. The Republican Party has gone so far to the Right that it and the Birch Society are now hard to distinguish.

I have heard that both left and right wing have become more extreme over the years. Not sure if that is true or not.

There is certainly less willingness to compromise.  Yes, prejudice that was accepted as normal in FDR's time would generate outrage today.  The civil rights and women's movements since the Awakening reflect vastly different expectations among the modern blue population.  Aspects of red culture have been dragged in the direction of equality quite some distance.  Given how stubborn and irrational cultures can act, it shouldn't be surprising that they are digging in and refusing to budge for a time.  In this, I'm not speaking only of the red culture.  The blue belief in equality is stubborn too.

What this fails to distinguish is the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.  It has always been the red culture that champions equality of opportunity; it was the Democrats who fought the civil rights movement most strongly when that was what the civil rights movement meant.

Once they had lost on the civil rights movement, the blue culture, unable to comprehend the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome, focused on forcing outcomes to be the same irrespective of fairness from an individual standpoint.  LBJ, who like many on the left truly believed that blacks were fundamentally inferior to whites, redefined affirmative action to mean discrimination against whites, because he thought that without favored treatment, blacks could never attain equality.

This is, of course, fought by the red culture, which believes that all races are fully capable of achieving equality on their own, given the opportunity, and should do so.
OK. You convinced me. I really need to sharpen up my writing skills.
Reply
#47
Warren:
"Who lacks rights in that case, in your opinion? The right of the baker not to have to sell a cake with a congratulatory message she doesn't believe in, or the right of the lesbian couple to be able to get a cake from whoever they want? Does a neonazi have the right to buy a cake from a Jewish baker with a swastika on it?"

To answer your question I think it is up to the individual biz owner. For instance i would hate to have my company represented by a neo nazi group as i am against intolerance. I view these business owners as also intolerant given that gays are very different to neo nazis who are against equality and gays who do not hurt others with the way they live their lives. But I also think that if we want a truly equal rights country it has to unfortunately include the rights of those who are intolerant of those who do not impact the lives of others at all. I do not think that religion should be used to be intolerant of others however. It gives a bad name to religion. I have spoken to Christians and they despise the fact that religion is being used in such a way and that it is not what the message is supposed to be about. I will just hope for a better day for future generations when they are far more tolerant than people are now and do not abuse Christianity or any religion to justify intolerance.

Pretty much in summary I am against intolerance of how others live their lives if it does not negative IMPACT how others live their lives.

Neo nazis take away rights
gays do not.
Neo nazis are against certain groups of people
gays just want to live their lives and do not force their way of life on others.
However these people feel we are taking away their right to discriminate not unlike those not so long ago who discriminated based on colour so i do not think forcing tolerance onto people is the right way to go about it. These people have to want to change themselves. The way to do it is to normalize gays and educate young people that it is just a way of life that does not harm others in any way at all. No rights taken away unlike neo nazis who want to take away rights from others.

So that is how i work it out. Do the people you serve want to remove your right to be who you are or not. Who is removing whose rights? The gays or you removing theirs?

Warren, read my whole message back before you assume who i am like you have done in the past as i am sick of it. You are I take it wiser than that.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#48
(01-28-2017, 11:24 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 11:53 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 10:02 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 09:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The John Birch Society, long considered extreme and ludicrous to conservatives, has stayed as far to the Right as possible without delving into calls for genocide (including enslavement or extermination) except perhaps against Communists. The Republican Party has gone so far to the Right that it and the Birch Society are now hard to distinguish.

I have heard that both left and right wing have become more extreme over the years. Not sure if that is true or not.

There is certainly less willingness to compromise.  Yes, prejudice that was accepted as normal in FDR's time would generate outrage today.  The civil rights and women's movements since the Awakening reflect vastly different expectations among the modern blue population.  Aspects of red culture have been dragged in the direction of equality quite some distance.  Given how stubborn and irrational cultures can act, it shouldn't be surprising that they are digging in and refusing to budge for a time.  In this, I'm not speaking only of the red culture.  The blue belief in equality is stubborn too.

What this fails to distinguish is the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.  It has always been the red culture that champions equality of opportunity; it was the Democrats who fought the civil rights movement most strongly when that was what the civil rights movement meant.

Once they had lost on the civil rights movement, the blue culture, unable to comprehend the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome, focused on forcing outcomes to be the same irrespective of fairness from an individual standpoint.  LBJ, who like many on the left truly believed that blacks were fundamentally inferior to whites, redefined affirmative action to mean discrimination against whites, because he thought that without favored treatment, blacks could never attain equality.

This is, of course, fought by the red culture, which believes that all races are fully capable of achieving equality on their own, given the opportunity, and should do so.

Yes, and certain groups do not have full opportunity now. Roadblocks are put in their way, like racial profiling, unnecessary police brutality, access to voting, and discrimination.

You can't build a red/blue narrative based only on political party labels. Southern and Northern Democrats were not the same in their views in the 1960s, or earlier. The sixties were a political party realignment, just as happened in every previous Awakening and Crisis. Once Barry Goldwater voted against the civil rights bill and ran for president in 1964, and Nixon's southern strategy and Wallace's campaign in 1968 mobilized anti-civil rights sentiment among southern whites, the parties completely changed ideologically and geographically. By 1980 the pattern we see today was well-established; Republicans are now the party of anti-civil rights, while Democrats are pro civil rights. In deep southern states, people vote almost entirely along racial lines: whites vote Republican and blacks vote Democratic. In old border states, Republicans win easily because whites outnumber blacks more than in the deep South.

The Democratic program does not embrace equal outcomes for all. What it offers is programs that keep everyone protected against capricious greedy bosses and economic crashes. Sometimes it offers programs to help lift people out of poverty, and that's what LBJ provided until he put all his eggs in the fight against communism.

Bill Clinton said mend affirmative action, not end it. Not because blacks or others are inferior to whites, but because discrimination still exists and so does economic inequality. This inequality and poverty happens among blacks because of the heritage of racism. Many have been able to break out of poverty, but some remain. This inequality affects people of all races, because the bosses have appropriated the country's wealth, and no adjustment has been made to this increasing trend since 1980. One can't expect people of any race to rise out of poverty, when the policy of the country is to keep people IN poverty, by allowing a small group to hoard all the wealth and power.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#49
Warren:
"So what does "all Americans" mean to you? Does it include illegal immigrants? I was specific about "citizens" in "American citizens" for a reason."

It includes all LEGAL Americans.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#50
Bob:
"But I'm tired of and disgusted by the double think. The current generation of bigots is openly promoting a right to practice overt segregation. There is no such right. When such a bogus right is advocated, it is time to call a bigot a bigot."

Labels such as bigot do nothing towards fixing the issue. Therefore I despise unproductive negative labels.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#51
(01-28-2017, 11:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 08:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 08:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote: A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Now, I would disagree that Gary Johnson is the only libertarian who is not a bigot.  It is possible to believe in the financial notion of unencumbered free markets and the political principle of small non-interfering government without being a bigot.  In this, I believe Galen should speak for himself.

You really don't understand do you?  Libertarianism recognizes the right of free association which also means that people have the right to choose who they don't associate with.  There is no double think involved here.  It is simply not the government's place to tell people who they may or may not associate with.  If people truly are bigoted then no amount of external force will change this.  Indeed, it will create resentment that will eventually express itself in a violent manner most likely.

I'm not particularly an expert in libertarianism.  I guess I'll have to ask others on the forum who think of themselves as libertarian to confirm or deny Galen's assertion.  Does libertarian thought necessarily demand the right to discriminate?  Is bigotry an inherent aspect of libertarianism?

I think most strict libertarians would tend to side with Galen on this issue:  people should be allowed to conduct business with who they want, without government intervention.  Without laws passed by the state requiring segregation, probably all libertarians believe that competition would have put businesses wasting space on segregated lunch counters out of business, in favor of more efficient businesses that used a single lunch counter for all their customers.

You have it exactly right.  I am sure some business owners would have done segregation on their own or simply excluded blacks but they would have been at a competitive disadvantage versus those who did not.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#52
(01-27-2017, 11:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You are touching on one aspect of what I call the 'arrow of progress.'  Those favoring the superiority of the whites and maintaining their superior place are of questionable merit.  Those seeking equality for minorities by race, culture and gender are winning a very slow and intermittent victory.  In general, yes, equality has in the long run been making advances over supremacists.

I find myself amused that you can flip it over in your mind, calling the supremacists 'core America' while those working towards equality have been mislabeled as pursing 'identity politics'.  My thought is that those favoring equality went a little too far too fast with a black president, pressure to ban official use of Confederate symbols, efforts on behalf of latinos, muslims and other cultures currently the victims of the supremacists, and attempts to mainline non-traditional gender partnerships.  The supremacists have recently seen too much progress towards equality.  They are ticked off at the moment.  There is a supremacist backlash in progress.  This happens from time to time in America.  Work towards equality will be at a pause for a time.  While I find this offensive, I do not believe the current backlash will continue indefinitely.  After a time of ugliness, work towards equality will resume.
Equality isn't as big of a deal on the Republican side. White supremacy isn't a big deal either (it barely exists nationally). I'd say that the Republican side (red America) is much further ahead in regards to the arrow of progress. The Democratic side has way more issues (identity politics and taxation related issues) for it to get hung up on and bogged down with than the Republican side. BTW, you should drop supremacists for your own sake. What's up with you, every time you show me some positive signs of progress, you step back and resort to the same old liberal bullshit.
Reply
#53
(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public. That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities. I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc... I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.
Reply
#54
(01-29-2017, 01:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 11:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You are touching on one aspect of what I call the 'arrow of progress.'  Those favoring the superiority of the whites and maintaining their superior place are of questionable merit.  Those seeking equality for minorities by race, culture and gender are winning a very slow and intermittent victory.  In general, yes, equality has in the long run been making advances over supremacists.

I find myself amused that you can flip it over in your mind, calling the supremacists 'core America' while those working towards equality have been mislabeled as pursing 'identity politics'.  My thought is that those favoring equality went a little too far too fast with a black president, pressure to ban official use of Confederate symbols, efforts on behalf of latinos, muslims and other cultures currently the victims of the supremacists, and attempts to mainline non-traditional gender partnerships.  The supremacists have recently seen too much progress towards equality.  They are ticked off at the moment.  There is a supremacist backlash in progress.  This happens from time to time in America.  Work towards equality will be at a pause for a time.  While I find this offensive, I do not believe the current backlash will continue indefinitely.  After a time of ugliness, work towards equality will resume.
Equality isn't as big of a deal on the Republican side. White supremacy isn't a big deal either (it barely exists nationally). I'd say that the Republican side (red America) is much further ahead in regards to the arrow of progress. The Democratic side has way more issues (identity politics and taxation related issues) for it to get hung up on and bogged down with than the Republican side. BTW, you should drop supremacists for your own sake. What's up with you, every time you show me some positive signs of progress, you step back  and resort to the same old liberal bullshit.

It is the red folk who are hung up about muslims and latinos.  The blue folk are trying to integrate those worthy into society as equals.  Granted, there are real economic and security issues involved.  These need to be worked.  However, many on the blue side think these should be worked without blanket discrimination against everyone with a certain culture, religion or skin tone.  The recent travel ban from muslim majority countries might stand as an example of red prejudice.

I see the red ideas of rejecting political correctness and accusing blues of identity politics as doublethink to justify continued prejudice, of keeping members of certain cultures, religions and skin tones outside of their society.

Equality and human rights are not bullshit, at least not to many in blue society.  If you are going to communicate with members of the blue culture, you shouldn't close your mind whenever Enlightenment values are invoked.

In general I favor a gentler more polite conversation.  However, there is nothing gentle or polite about prejudice.  To me, those favoring prejudice have hidden behind politically correct language for too long.  For a bit, I'm inclined to call a spade a spade.
Reply
#55
(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public.  That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.  I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc...  I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.
You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.
Reply
#56
(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public.  That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.  I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc...  I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.
You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

Followers of many political systems declare assorted rights to exist.  Libertarians are one of many such systems to declare their own set of rights.  What ought to be remembered, however, is that the founding fathers who wrote the US Constitution followed Enlightenment values, not libertarian.  Libertarians declaring rights to exist is generally cute but harmless.  Children of the Enlightenment declaring rights to exist quite often find that the law is on their side.

The key under modern law is whether one is providing goods or services to the public.  If you are providing goods or services to the public in one's home, one's home has become a public place.  I've got friends running a game store that is struggling enough that they sleep at the store.  That their place of business is also their home does not mean they are free to discriminate.
Reply
#57
(01-29-2017, 02:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public.  That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.  I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc...  I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.
You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

Followers of many political systems declare assorted rights to exist.  Libertarians are one of many such systems to declare their own set of rights.  What ought to be remembered, however, is that the founding fathers who wrote the US Constitution followed Enlightenment values, not libertarian.  Libertarians declaring rights to exist is generally cute but harmless.  Children of the Enlightenment declaring rights to exist quite often find that the law is on their side.

The key under modern law is whether one is providing goods or services to the public.  If you are providing goods or services to the public in one's home, one's home has become a public place.  I've got friends running a game store that is struggling enough that they sleep at the store.  That their place of business is also their home does not mean they are free to discriminate.

Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with.  I would recommend Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard which is a very good history of Colonial America through to the early Federal period.  It was actually very well received by historians at the time an well worth your time to read.

The modern liberal bears very little resemblance to the Classical Liberals who really wouldn't have much problem with the Libertarian point of view.  They would libertarianism as a continuation of classical liberal intellectual thought.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#58
(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with

Well, yes. In the mid 20th Century, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP systematically went after the Jim Crow interpretation of the Constitution. If libertarians are yearning for the good old days of Jim Crow, I'll dissent.

Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal. In his time, white male land owning men were a lot more equal than others. I for one will advocate the principle of equality beyond the extent that existed in colonial times. Progressives tend to believe in progress. Conservatives, not so much. A return to Jim Crow era values is out of the question.
Reply
#59
(01-29-2017, 04:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with

Well, yes.  In the mid 20th Century, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP systematically went after the Jim Crow interpretation of the Constitution.  If libertarians are yearning for the good old days, I'll dissent.

Jim Crow was a set of laws passed by the southern states which mandated discrimination.  In short they were specific acts of the government to force businesses to discriminate.  You are now reaching Eric the Obtuse levels of ignorance.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#60
(01-29-2017, 04:36 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-29-2017, 04:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with

Well, yes.  In the mid 20th Century, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP systematically went after the Jim Crow interpretation of the Constitution.  If libertarians are yearning for the good old days, I'll dissent.

Jim Crow was a set of laws passed by the southern states which mandated discrimination.  In short they were specific acts of the government to force businesses to discriminate.  You are now reaching Eric the Obtuse levels of ignorance.

At the end of the Reconstruction, there was a series of Supreme Court cases which systematically negated the Bill of Rights.  In the mid 20th Century, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP removed these cases from precedent.  Jim Crow indeed included state and local laws, but there was a federal element as well.

Plessy vs. Ferguson is the best known of these cases.  There were five of them in 1883. New Orleans & Texas Railway v Mississippi and Hall v DeCuir are also worth mentioning.

Encyclopedia Britanica Wrote:Civil Rights Cases, five legal cases that the U.S. Supreme Court consolidated (because of their similarity) into a single ruling on October 15, 1883, in which the court declared the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to be unconstitutional and thus spurred Jim Crow laws that codified the previously private, informal, and local practice of racial segregation in the United States. In an 8–1 decision, the landmark ruling struck down the critical provision in the Civil Rights Act prohibiting racial discrimination in public places (such as hotels, restaurants, theatres, and railroads), what would later be called “public accommodations.” The ruling barred Congress from remedying racial segregation and in effect legalized the notion of “separate but equal” (though the ruling did not use this language) that would predominate in American society until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was a devastating blow to the rights of African Americans. The five consolidated cases were United States v. Stanley, United States v. Ryan, United States v. Nichols, United States v. Singleton, and Robinson and wife v. Memphis & Charleston R.R. Co.

It is possible to question just who hasn't done their homework. During the Reconstruction, when the Black Republicans were attempting to integrate blacks into southern culture on a more or less equal basis, they had control of the state legislatures and US Congress. Equality laws were passed at both state and federal levels. After reconstruction, as Jim Crow was being established, rather than have the legislatures take these laws off the books, quite often the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional. Some of these cases declared that the US Congress and state governments do not have the power to forbid segregation. In this time window at least, it was the Reconstruction legislatures pushing equality laws while later the Jim Crow era US Supreme Court quashed the equality laws and enabled segregation.

Again, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP in the mid 20th Century pushed a series of court cases which quashed the above precedents.

Again, it wasn't a matter of governments forcing businessmen. The dominant southern culture of the time favored segregation. The segregationists were in charge of the state legislatures, and owned the businesses. It wasn't a question of one element forcing the other. The culture of the time placed race relations as very important, much more important than the difference in profitability of maintaining separate facilities.

You have a nice internally consistent alternate reality going. It just doesn't share all that much with real world history.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Americans Remain Eligible for Targeted Killing, White House Clarifies nebraska 0 598 01-17-2018, 12:37 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Rep. Justin Amash loses fights to limit government spying on Americans nebraska 0 376 01-12-2018, 10:39 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Report: Americans view Trump White House as the most corrupt government institution nebraska 0 538 01-11-2018, 08:39 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Americans pessimistic about Trump, country: AP-NORC Poll nebraska 0 482 01-05-2018, 08:56 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Americans Remain Eligible for Targeted Killing, White House Clarifies nebraska 0 471 12-27-2017, 04:01 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Americans and business being driven away by taxes, regulations nebraska 0 464 12-25-2017, 09:07 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war taramarie 25 9,041 10-17-2016, 11:21 PM
Last Post: Ragnarök_62
  Americans Aren't Buying Donald Trump's Immigration Rhetoric, Polls Show naf140230 7 3,736 09-22-2016, 11:33 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Millions of Ordinary Americans Support Trump. Here's Why. taramarie 71 21,746 07-30-2016, 11:59 PM
Last Post: MillsT_98

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)