Liberal/Conservative Mental Gymnastics

1. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   Hey all,
   
   I came across this article today.
   
   http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block169.html
   
   I highly recommend reading the whole thing, but I'll summarize a few key points for those uninterested in the "hurdle" that is "reading".
   
   1) Block (the author) discusses how angry the US got at Rand Paul when he suggested that private businesses be allowed to discriminate against customers. Paul was arguing that (state run) government should NOT be allowed to discriminate, but that private businesses - who own their property - SHOULD be allowed to discriminate as they see fit.
   
   2) Block defends Paul (indirectly - the article isn't all about Paul) this by pointing out that if you are a customer who hates Chinese people, and you DON'T eat at a Chinese restaurant, then you aren't breaking a law; but if you're a Chinese-hating business owner who doesn't let Chinese people into your store then - even though you're doing the same thing: refusing to trade with a Chinese person - you ARE breaking the law.
   
   3) He points out repeatedly that people discriminate RELENTLESSLY and TIRELESSLY every single day. Why are your friends your friends? -- you likely discriminated against other people based on looks, humor, and personality. Why do heterosexual men fall in love with women? -- clearly they're discriminating their choices of love making, those jerks!
   
   And so on.
   
   I'd love to hear some mental gymnastics from the people who disagree!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with Block! Private property is just that PRIVATE and as the owner of that property you should be able top do as you wish.
      Of course there really isn't such thing as private property anymore, since property taxes give the government an interest in YOUR property, and a right to take it from you if those aren't paid as well as the misuse of the power of eminent domain.
      Oops, I hope I don't get banned again for stating my opinion!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      As if your own post isn't based on them?

      replyreport
2. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   I disagree. Do you think we should go back to the pre-Civil Rights era, when blacks weren't allowed in restaurants? When they couldn't use "white" toilets? Or drink from "white" water fountains?
   
   I think private businesses should have the right to ban INDIVIDUALS, like those who have caused trouble in the past, but to discriminate against an entire group for no reason other than hatred? NO!!
   
   If businesses want to serve only hand-picked clientele, they should start a private club.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I had the vague feeling I heard the argument of the OP recently. Then I placed it. My 7-year-old daughter is miffed in exactly the same way. She got a Nintendo DS and I installed parental controls which kick in when she wants to go online to DS chat rooms or whatever. She's also not pleased  that I would not allow her to take it to school to show off. And Mom makes her turn it off to do homework.
      
      Her complains sound exactly like the OP."It's mine and no one can tell me what to do with it." That sums up libertarian philosophy and defines the fans of Ayn Rand. Regardless of chronological age, they are 7-year-olds  who never learned to play well with others stamping their feet screaming.. "It's MINE - MINE - MINE!"

      replyreport
      1. 58

         fits3x100posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         And now the parents should invite kids she hates over to play with her? Cause then she'll have to play nice??? You can't legislate morality. It has it's own consequences. And unless people learn them from personal observation, they resent the lessons as being "crammed down their throat" and change nothing.
         Governments are not parents by the way. No one in my family would frequent this guys place anyway. In todays age, if someone is daft enough to enter the service industry with a commitment to not "serve" any people based on bigotry...well I don't see success in their future, and the market would deliver that lesson without the drama.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Love your hubs.
            
            If I read you right - you take the libertarian position that is a business practices racial discrimination, you would not do business there and 'the market would deliver that lesson..".  I'm not trying to read into your comment - correct me if I am wrong.
            
            Here's the problem - in the 60's racial discrimination in the South was institutionalized. Equal education in the form of forced integration caused riots which federal police had to quell.  In a century from the end of the Civil War to the start of the Civil Rights Movement, the natural integration without government  intervention had not happened. The tolerance you advocate, sincere I am sure, is now the norm even in the South strictly BECAUSE of federal intervention.
            
            Now that schools are integrated and there are no institutional barriers for a black man or woman, some libertarians pretend the Civil Rights Movement - with federal force - was somehow coincidental to progress, not the prime mover. To anyone who knows the history of the period, that's not a bad joke - it's an insult. That's why Ron Paul was in the hot seat for his remarks.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               fits3x100posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Doug, I Totally agree with the effect of the Federal Government on the Civil Rights Movement. But, in my memory the statewide institutionalized segregation was what they attacked. City buses, State Schools, Governors ignoring Federal Statutes... not Pauls' Pizza and Pasta... No Blacks allowed. Pauls' Pizza would have starved to death in todays' world.
               And no I would not label myself Libertarian. I'm pretty conservative, but I don't subscribe to any of the planks or platforms that any Group throws out there. If however their platform says that a free market polices itself...I concur. We vote with our dollars. If it were a matter of a business owner standing on his curb slinging racial slurs, I would hope someone would pull out a prosecution based on violation of existing Federal Hate Crime Statutes.My family fought with the North. Great G-pa in the Army of the Ohio, His brother was a sharpshooter with Sherman on his Southern Campaign. I know from their letters they believed they were fighting for a people who had not the power to fight for themselves. If the South had freed the slaves at the beginning of the conflict, they may very well have fought for the limitation of Federal Authority over the States.
               Mighty big if. We have, at times tried to be the Worlds moral Policemen. Sometimes we were right. The problem has become this. The Fed is increasingly taking the role of Moral Policeman over the individual. That would be great...if they were moral, but they are not.
               Hey, so much to solve...so little time...

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  How quickly we forget. The section of the Civil Rights act made it a criminal offense with HUGE civil penalties to discriminate in business PRACTICES. That meant that the owner of a Pizza Parlor lose  the profits of 6 months if he refused to serve blacks - or tried to segregate.
                  
                  Because of this 'oppression', blacks and whites learned to live together and no white family freaks out at the prospect of being seated by a black family. Your lack of bigotry PROVES it worked. Without the virtual threat of confiscation, institutional racism would have been replaces with social aparthaid .For Sure.
                  
                  The act does not legislate morality. It prohibits overt hateful behavour. Finding morality is something individuals do - or fail to do. The CRA doesn't legislate morality. You are still allowed to BE a bigot - but the CRA makes it very expensive to ACT on hate.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     fits3x100posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Not so willing to concede on the civil penalty power issue. I will do my due diligence and research penalties and fines levied. But I strongly disagree that integration worked here in the mid-west. My Father in law owned 3 little markets. As the schools integrated, folks moved into the old Italian, Polish, Irish hoods. He and his wife were the last of the neighborhood originals to leave. That was 1981. Highland Park, Ecorse, Dearborn, East Detroit, etc. all simply replaced one population with another. Folks did not say, "Well honey, the Government says we have to live next to XYZ Race, so I guess we should." They said in effect, You can't make me!" and moved out to the burbs. With the ensuing economic vacuum, those old neighborhoods decayed rapidly (the 3 markets were looted and burned to the ground) giving more fuel to the racial tension fire. Totally unsuccessful.
                     I believe we are all born equal with the right to be unequal. When we learn to let men stand on their own merits and celebrate their success with equal fervor, regardless of race creed or other orientation, we'll have it.
                     And really, the whites and blacks that had no difficulty with each others presence had enriched lives as a result of that mind set. Those that freaked out ...moved out and took their jobs and pizza places with them.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        "Folks did not say, "Well honey, the Government says we have to live next to XYZ Race, so I guess we should."
                        
                        Except it's a false argument. The government said you could not PROHIBIT someone from moving in based on race. The government guaranteed THEIR equality to whites - as provided in the 14th amendment. Nowhere did the government say you can't move out. It did guarantee they can move IN.
                        
                        There's a difference.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           fits3x100posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Doug, What was the "Spirit" of the Law? By that  I mean, what was the desired outcome? That folks of race were  free to change their Zip codes? Or rather, that we learned to live in Peace. Equally. I shudder to think that the day could return when the Government could say, "You can't live here based on your race, religion, politics, or gender." But, I also shudder when the Government say's "We understand that you purchased this property and have the right(please see as def. in 4th Am.) to inhabit and make use of it...but only as we see fit, and only if you allow people you hate to enter it as a general public."
                           A man convinced against his will...is of the same opinion still. I am pretty calm, pacifistic to a great extent. But, bullies! whew! It's like someone pours gas on the fire in my heart! Bigots are bullies. I'd go to jail for sure over this stuff...if confronted directly. Maybe I dislike the confrontation, or maybe I've learned that legislation does not change hearts.
                           I am not impressed when the Government empowers the changing of a man's address. I am impressed when it empowers the changing of a man's heart. I'm pretty sure you feel the same. We simply differ on the choice of mechanisms and the role of the Government in the equation.
                           hehehe...by the way, I disagree with your argument... but know full well there is nothing "False" about it to you...eh?

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              "I am not impressed when the Government empowers the changing of a man's address. I am impressed when it empowers the changing of a man's heart."
                              
                              Translation - I don't want government to allow 'people of color' to live in my neighborhood.. but they can have ghettos and christianity so they can feel the love of jesus in their squalor.

                              replyreport
               2. 84

                  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually one of the biggest movements of the Civil Rights movement was the sit-ins at lunch counters, diners, and other restaurants that only served whites.
                  
                  
                  
                  

                  replyreport
               3. 61

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  "If however their platform says that a free market polices itself, then I concur"
                  
                  Join the Anarcho-capitalist philosophy!

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Except for the evidence of abuse by corporations which proves you need regulation by a government stronger than the entities they monitor.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Do the letters BP ring a bell?

                        replyreport
            2. 57

               C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Doug, I agree with this exception:
               " in the 60's racial discrimination in the South was institutionalized. "
               
               Racial discrimination was institutionalized through out the US. Detroit had a WALL BUILT to inforce residential segregation! The massive riots that occured did so predominately in northern or more "progressive" cities. The idea that racial discrimination was predominately a southern problem is just as prejudiced as the racial discrimination itself.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree there was discrimination throughout the US. The Civil Rights Act did not single out any part of the country. Yes, race riots happened in California where I grew up, and there was discrimination there. But I dare you to plot where lynchings of black people happened from 1900 to 1960. Civil Rights activists were not murdered in Chicago. MLK was not murdered in San Francisco.  Only in the South in the 60s, did major political figures defend racism with threats of violence.

                  replyreport
3. 59

   Jim Hunterposted 13 years ago

   People of all races are discriminated against everyday.
   
   Store owners do have the right to not sell to anyone they don't want to.
   
   Now, if you were going to sue one of these store owners for discriminating against you then you would have to prove that you were harmed in some way.
   
   Here's the thing.
   
   If you came to buy something and were denied how were you harmed? You didn't have the item to begin with and nothing was taken from you.
   
   If the argument is "my feelings were hurt" we're in big trouble.

   replyreport