Topic: Should a Jewish resturant owner be forced to serve a skinhead? - page 6. (Read 9157 times)

which of the two cases ("vice versa") would be more likely to happen 

or vice versa, in fact  

depends on whether he is an anti-semitism whiner  

or one of those: http://www.picturehost.eu/uploads/a03cd6150981e8658bab53f971218e8b_swast2.jpg

Yeah, you don't choose to be bi, either.

Its perfectly ok to continue an old discussion that is also an ongoing issue.


Some people choose a bi-sexual lifestyle. No one chooses to be bi-racial.

Fuck yeah!!! More nazi discussions.


dudes you are a bunch of lame necrobumpers!

For that matter, so does the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison

but the Israelis do it these days, no?

They started shipping them off to camps and killing them. That's kind of a no-no.

Well then sure the Germans were right when they stopped serving jews and buying from jews in the 1930s. But why then all the fuss 

Disconnect with what? Libertarians just want the least invasive and violent form of government possible. What's wrong with that? The fact that people just want to serve certain people under specific constraints may, in some cases, appear arbitrary.

But what's considered arbitrary if property ownership is already absolute? In fact, property ceases to be property when it's not exclusive anymore. Or more precisely, it merely comes into possession and control of the strongest most violent individual willing to take it from you for whatever reason they deem necessary.

Welcome to the animal kingdom and Darwinism. Let the strongest survive. Such a beautiful world we live in...

There is a real disconnect in this thread...

If a jewish merchand has the right to refuse serving a customer for whatever reason, what's stopping a non-jewish merchand to serve jewish people?

I believe any merchand should have the right to refuse to serve any client.  And if this allows racist behaviors and ostracism, so be it.

I don't believe you but I'll accept it as true for the sake of argument. Even assuming that's true, it doesn't matter. No business is required to give you service. You don't get to point a gun at someone and say "let me be a customer", no matter how desperately you need that good or service and no matter how arbitrary the reason for being denied service. I think it sucks that some businesses are operated by racists but that doesn't give you the right to use violence. The use of violence is justified in immediate self-defense only.

Still a shadow of legally enforced segregation that existed in the south.  Most of the Freedom Riders grew up in the north, and were told to expect the kind of treatment that they have heard of, but never experienced personally, because they grew up in a northern state.  There is a huge difference between some racist who refuses to ride on the same bus with you, and the racist with a badge who releases the trained attack dog on you for your belief that you get to ride on the bus regardless of someone else's opinion.  Check your history books, black men in the south risked getting beaten or killed for looking a white woman in the eyes.  For that matter, they risked getting killed for sport in some areas for the act of being black.  That's real racism, and it was often condoned, if not outright committed by, the elected and appointed representatives of law and order.  If I was so inclined, I could find dozens of such cases in the old south prior to 1960 that went unpunished.  I can probably find a dozen such cases in the north also, but the perpetrators were normally prosecuted.  No one just stopped being racist because of the law being changed, or the Civil Rights Act being passed.  It took a generation of education, at least, to alter the culture; but only the hard racists in the deep south were forced into it, the Civil Rights Act made little difference to the culture of the northern states and western states, which is one reason that it passed so easily.

This is a perfect example of why I got out of this type of field. It lends itself to endless argument which can always be co-opted to support whatever someone wants it to. It is an attempt to apply logic to a situation with too many unknown variables. Where is the data to support his arguments? Is data useless? Is the fact that African Americans were enslaved for hundreds of years a data point he is using?

No, it was because white people would refuse to share busses and schools with blacks. The free market responded by giving what most of its customers demanded.

Anyone thinking racism and free markets are mutually exclusive, should read this:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/racism.htm

So now we have come to the real issue. Is it worth it to give the government power to enforce "racial integration" despite that it comes with the risk of these powers used to suppress freedom of action. Imagine what can be done with these these powers once someone you disagree with is in control. Is it worth it?

I realize that is vague but it is meant to be, just as the constitution is. What is the legal basis of corporate person-hood? 14th amendment.

Greyhound bus lines were not segregated except in the states that required it as a matter of state law.

The 'de facto' segregation of the northern states was a shadow of the reality of the legally enforced segregation of the south.  It's offensive to even compare the two.  Sure, there were racists everywhere, and many of them were attracted to positions of power, particularly in the police forces, and thus crap happens.  But it wasn't officially condoned as a matter of state law north of the mason-dixon line.  For that matter, the kind of person that would pass judgements upon another human being's character, value or criminal intents based primarily upon a group identity beyond their own control is still the same kind of person that is attracted to a police career.  That much is true everywhere and always.  Tribalism cannot be stamped out of the human condition by the simple act of passing a law that prohibits it, and it's the height of arrogance (or irrationality) to believe that it could.

One shortcoming of the argument that says people should be able to discriminate is when they have a monopoly (or near monopoly).  For instance if you look at the private bus industry in the United States, Greyhound and its affiliates own around 80% of the routes.  You can get to major cities like NYC on one of the Chinese bus company routes, but Greyhound will go to around 10-50 times more locations.

Or if you were discriminating against Muslims, in my neighborhood which has a significant Muslim community, you still wouldn't necessarily have a single bank or major grocery store (non-corner store) that is owned by a Muslim - so the non-Muslims have an effective monopoly on these things.

Separate but equal is never really equal.