Should a Jewish resturant owner be forced to serve a skinhead? - page 7.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: P4man on January 11, 2012, 06:21:21 PM

These segregation laws did not exist in the northern states, yet busses, schools ets where de factor segregated there too. Free market didnt help.

More over, we are talking about blacks, a large minority, that in fact, locally had a large majority. There is an economic incentive there; an incentive that doesnt exist for tiny minorities that do not live as concentrated as blacks did (and to some extend still do).

A free market didn't exist then either. My parents spoke of a time when they saw black men hanging from trees in the 40's and 50's and everybody just went about their business and ignored it. There's nothing free about that. A free market is one where your property, and person are not violated, and if they are, there are stiff penalties.

Blacks were not treated equitably under the same laws as other lighter skinned persons. That should have been their beef, not whether someone should serve them the same as everybody else. Similar or identical service shouldn't have been the legal issue. You preach against racism, you don't legalize it.

I hate racism, in fact, I abhor it, but I don't think laws change behaviors and beliefs just cause you write it on a piece of parchment. And besides, the side effects of violating property rights and personal behavior only makes the situation worse. Discrimination punishment is not proportional in its application. Proportionality is always key to equitable law.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: MoonShadow on January 11, 2012, 05:46:02 PM

Every single example of segregation that you have just presented were universally present in southern states in the 60's because of state segregation & 'Jim Crow' laws that compelled private business owners to do so. The "Freedom Rides" events are the prime example of this. The cross country bus companies couldn't have cared less if there were blacks on the same bus as whites, but couldn't allow this to occur in certain states because of the law. The same was true with the segregated bus stations, maintaining multiple facilities was more expensive than intergration, the free market most certianly would have fixed this one in the South if left to it's own devices, because that is exactly what happened everywhere else.

These segregation laws did not exist in the northern states, yet busses, schools ets where de factor segregated there too. Free market didnt help.

More over, we are talking about blacks, a large minority, that in fact, locally had a large majority. There is an economic incentive there; an incentive that doesnt exist for tiny minorities that do not live as concentrated as blacks did (and to some extend still do).

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: P4man on January 11, 2012, 02:57:30 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on January 11, 2012, 02:53:11 PM

Let the punishment fit the crime. Protect personal property. Protect personal liberties. Do not legislate personal behavior, opinion, speech, or beliefs.

It is only when those behaviors prevent others from acting upon their personal liberties and properties is when laws should be come into effect.

So you think not being allowed to take any bus, any cab or order a meal in any restaurant does not constitute an attack on your liberty? I wonder what the hell those blacks got so upset about in the 60s.

Every single example of segregation that you have just presented were universally present in southern states in the 60's because of state segregation & 'Jim Crow' laws that compelled private business owners to do so. The "Freedom Rides" events are the prime example of this. The cross country bus companies couldn't have cared less if there were blacks on the same bus as whites, but couldn't allow this to occur in certain states because of the law. The same was true with the segregated bus stations, maintaining multiple facilities was more expensive than intergration, the free market most certianly would have fixed this one in the South if left to it's own devices, because that is exactly what happened everywhere else.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: P4man on January 11, 2012, 02:57:30 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on January 11, 2012, 02:53:11 PM

Let the punishment fit the crime. Protect personal property. Protect personal liberties. Do not legislate personal behavior, opinion, speech, or beliefs.

It is only when those behaviors prevent others from acting upon their personal liberties and properties is when laws should be come into effect.

So you think not being allowed to take any bus, any cab or order a meal in any restaurant does not constitute an attack on your liberty? I wonder what the hell those blacks got so upset about in the 60s.

Who owns the bus, who owns the cab, who owns the meal? If I don't want you to ride my bus, tough. If I don't want you in my cab, tough. If I don't want you eating my meal, tough.

Get a clue.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: FredericBastiat on January 11, 2012, 02:53:11 PM

Let the punishment fit the crime. Protect personal property. Protect personal liberties. Do not legislate personal behavior, opinion, speech, or beliefs.

It is only when those behaviors prevent others from acting upon their personal liberties and properties is when laws should be come into effect.

So you think not being allowed to take any bus, any cab or order a meal in any restaurant does not constitute an attack on your liberty? I wonder what the hell those blacks got so upset about in the 60s.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: SgtSpike on January 11, 2012, 02:48:34 PM

I do really believe that, yes.

So you think its political suicide to discriminate against, say, gays? I guess thats why everyone is in favor of gay marriage or gays openly serving in the military. I guess there is no discrimination against hispanics in any of the southern states either.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Let the punishment fit the crime. Protect personal property. Protect personal liberties. Do not legislate personal behavior, opinion, speech, or beliefs.

It is only when those behaviors prevent others from acting upon their personal liberties and properties is when laws should be come into effect.

Denial of service is not an overt forceful act. It does not prevent, prohibit or proscribe others from the use of their personal liberties and properties. Notwithstanding, we all descriminate in some way.

What if I said I'd never marry a green-faced person because I hate green-faced people? Are you going to create laws that force me to marry green-faced individuals due to my spiteful color discrimination? It is discrimination isn't it?

Where does the madness stop?

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: P4man on January 11, 2012, 01:26:27 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on January 11, 2012, 01:18:43 PM

I think that because we're now in the politically-correct mindset that discrimination is wrong, it wouldn't be a problem to get rid of those laws today. A few companies here and there would be discriminatory, boycotted, and shut down from lack of business, but overall, I think we'd be pretty good about "self-policing" those policies, now that we're in the right mindset.

You really believe that? Perhaps you are just thinking about the black minority; after nearly half a century of (on paper) equal rights, I still have my doubts about that. Im pretty sure it does not apply to a ton of other minorities. You really think there would be a big backlash against companies or individuals discriminating against, say, Muslims, or gays, or Hispanics in certain communities?
I dont think so. Heck, in many aspects and states even the law discriminates against them.

I do really believe that, yes.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

To be clear; I dont think Paul actually is a racist.
I do think he is misguided if he thinks governments have no business trying to regulate racism or other forms of oppression of minorities. On the contrary, I think its absolutely essential for a "free" society to ensure the freedoms of minorities. Being allowed to be a racist prick refusing to serve someone because of skin color or whatever, is not freedom; its the contrary, it infringes on the freedom of countless people to have a coffee, take a bus, cab or whatever.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: P4man on January 11, 2012, 01:12:47 PM

Racism breeds more racism; if you have lived all your life seeing blacks, jews, indians, gipsies or whatever being treated differently, you will accept that as the norm and treat and see them differently. No free market is going to fix that, on the contrary, a free market will most likely reinforce it, particularly if its about a small, economically unimportant minority.

You might be right about that, I wasn't trying address whether a free market is capable of eliminating racism or not in this thread. And neither was RP in respect to the Civil Rights Act. His point, and mine, is that any such selective enforcement of a positive right by any level of government will lead to unintended consequences. Also, the free market pretty much suppressed racism in Britain, although that wasn't an absolute job either. The change in the laws came after the changes in the public viewpoint, and I believe that is how it always happens. The Civil Rights Act was only possible after the paradigm shift among the electorate, leading to many of the effective clauses in such laws to be overreach for that reason alone.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: SgtSpike on January 11, 2012, 01:18:43 PM

I think that because we're now in the politically-correct mindset that discrimination is wrong, it wouldn't be a problem to get rid of those laws today. A few companies here and there would be discriminatory, boycotted, and shut down from lack of business, but overall, I think we'd be pretty good about "self-policing" those policies, now that we're in the right mindset.

You really believe that? Perhaps you are just thinking about the black minority; after nearly half a century of (on paper) equal rights, I still have my doubts about that. Im pretty sure it does not apply to a ton of other minorities. You really think there would be a big backlash against companies or individuals discriminating against, say, Muslims, or gays, or Hispanics in certain communities?
I dont think so. Heck, in many aspects and states even the law discriminates against them.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: bb113 on January 11, 2012, 01:15:27 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on January 11, 2012, 01:05:10 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on January 11, 2012, 12:41:01 PM

Guys, seriously?!! Is it really that hard to figure out? How is a business any different than my home, my bedroom, or my bathroom. If I don't want you there for whatever reason, then you're not welcome. Property is property regardless of it's description and purpose.

Just because you call it a business, doesn't change the fact that it's private property with general, and specific restrictions you set . It would no longer be your property if someone else got to decide what they could do with it. That would force it to be thusly communal and effectuate outright theft, not to mention the enslavement issue.

Ostracizing, and boycotting unconventional personal proclivities and behaviors probably works well enough, so leave well enough alone. Of course, what's ostracizing or boycotting if it isn't discrimination. In fact, forcing people to serve others they otherwise wouldn't, is equally as discriminating, except now your doing it at the end of a bayonet, or wasting resources defending it in a court of law. People should just grow up.

I don't like arbitrary, capricious or mean-spirirted discrimination, but I like thought crimes and social engineering even worse.

I like your thoughts, and I kind of said the same thing earlier on, but the free market had centuries to cure various forms of racism, and never did cure some of them, as P4man pointed out. Unfortunately, it seems the only way to change the majority mindset on some of these subjects is to be told by the government what is right and what is wrong.

So, Ron Paul's answer to this is that the discrimination was being enforced by the government. The anti-segregation laws came into being at the same time the segregation laws were outlawed. He attributes the success of the civil rights act primarily to the latter (outlaw government-enforced segregation), while many people attribute it to the former (enforce integration).

Second, he asks if these laws are necessary today. Would any contemporary business be able to survive if it was out and out discriminating against blacks, or would boycotts take care of it?

That's basically what he said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

I'm not sure if I completely buy it, but I follow his reasoning and it is not racist.

I think that because we're now in the politically-correct mindset that discrimination is wrong, it wouldn't be a problem to get rid of those laws today. A few companies here and there would be discriminatory, boycotted, and shut down from lack of business, but overall, I think we'd be pretty good about "self-policing" those policies, now that we're in the right mindset.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: SgtSpike on January 11, 2012, 01:05:10 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on January 11, 2012, 12:41:01 PM

Guys, seriously?!! Is it really that hard to figure out? How is a business any different than my home, my bedroom, or my bathroom. If I don't want you there for whatever reason, then you're not welcome. Property is property regardless of it's description and purpose.

Just because you call it a business, doesn't change the fact that it's private property with general, and specific restrictions you set . It would no longer be your property if someone else got to decide what they could do with it. That would force it to be thusly communal and effectuate outright theft, not to mention the enslavement issue.

Ostracizing, and boycotting unconventional personal proclivities and behaviors probably works well enough, so leave well enough alone. Of course, what's ostracizing or boycotting if it isn't discrimination. In fact, forcing people to serve others they otherwise wouldn't, is equally as discriminating, except now your doing it at the end of a bayonet, or wasting resources defending it in a court of law. People should just grow up.

I don't like arbitrary, capricious or mean-spirirted discrimination, but I like thought crimes and social engineering even worse.

I like your thoughts, and I kind of said the same thing earlier on, but the free market had centuries to cure various forms of racism, and never did cure some of them, as P4man pointed out. Unfortunately, it seems the only way to change the majority mindset on some of these subjects is to be told by the government what is right and what is wrong.

So, Ron Paul's answer to this is that the discrimination was being enforced by the government. The anti-segregation laws came into being at the same time the segregation laws were outlawed. He attributes the success of the civil rights act primarily to the latter (outlaw government-enforced segregation), while many people attribute it to the former (enforce integration).

Second, he asks if these laws are necessary today. Would any contemporary business be able to survive if it was out and out discriminating against blacks, or would boycotts take care of it?

That's basically what he said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

I'm not sure if I completely buy it, but I follow his reasoning and it is not racist.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Exactly; what it boils down to, is if you support discrimination of minorities or not. If that is your idea of freedom, your freedom to oppress or be oppressed by a majority (wether numerical or other, think apartheid), then I will have to disagree with you. Thats not my idea of freedom.

Racism breeds more racism; if you have lived all your life seeing blacks, jews, indians, gipsies or whatever being treated differently, you will accept that as the norm and treat and see them differently. No free market is going to fix that, on the contrary, a free market will most likely reinforce it, particularly if its about a small, economically unimportant minority. Boycots work both ways; business accepting to serve minorities and treat them equally risk being boycotted by a bigoted majority, and the circle wont end without some form of legislation.

Protecting the rights of minorities is IMHO a key aspect of safeguarding democracy, to avoid a tyranny of the majority.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: FredericBastiat on January 11, 2012, 12:41:01 PM

Guys, seriously?!! Is it really that hard to figure out? How is a business any different than my home, my bedroom, or my bathroom. If I don't want you there for whatever reason, then you're not welcome. Property is property regardless of it's description and purpose.

Just because you call it a business, doesn't change the fact that it's private property with general, and specific restrictions you set . It would no longer be your property if someone else got to decide what they could do with it. That would force it to be thusly communal and effectuate outright theft, not to mention the enslavement issue.

Ostracizing, and boycotting unconventional personal proclivities and behaviors probably works well enough, so leave well enough alone. Of course, what's ostracizing or boycotting if it isn't discrimination. In fact, forcing people to serve others they otherwise wouldn't, is equally as discriminating, except now your doing it at the end of a bayonet, or wasting resources defending it in a court of law. People should just grow up.

I don't like arbitrary, capricious or mean-spirirted discrimination, but I like thought crimes and social engineering even worse.

I like your thoughts, and I kind of said the same thing earlier on, but the free market had centuries to cure various forms of racism, and never did cure some of them, as P4man pointed out. Unfortunately, it seems the only way to change the majority mindset on some of these subjects is to be told by the government what is right and what is wrong.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: FredericBastiat on January 11, 2012, 12:41:01 PM

Guys, seriously?!! Is it really that hard to figure out? How is a business any different than my home, my bedroom, or my bathroom. If I don't want you there for whatever reason, then you're not welcome. Property is property regardless of it's description and purpose.

Just because you call it a business, doesn't change the fact that it's private property with general, and specific restrictions you set . It would no longer be your property if someone else got to decide what they could do with it. That would force it to be thusly communal and effectuate outright theft, not to mention the enslavement issue.

Ostracizing, and boycotting unconventional personal proclivities and behaviors probably works well enough, so leave well enough alone. Of course, what's ostracizing or boycotting if it isn't discrimination. In fact, forcing people to serve others they otherwise wouldn't, is equally as discriminating, except now your doing it at the end of a bayonet, or wasting resources defending it in a court of law. People should just grow up.

I don't like arbitrary, capricious or mean-spirirted discrimination, but I like thought crimes and social engineering even worse.

agree with you, BUT the law does not.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Guys, seriously?!! Is it really that hard to figure out? How is a business any different than my home, my bedroom, or my bathroom. If I don't want you there for whatever reason, then you're not welcome. Property is property regardless of it's description and purpose.

Just because you call it a business, doesn't change the fact that it's private property with general, and specific restrictions you set . It would no longer be your property if someone else got to decide what they could do with it. That would force it to be thusly communal and effectuate outright theft, not to mention the enslavement issue.

Ostracizing, and boycotting unconventional personal proclivities and behaviors probably works well enough, so leave well enough alone. Of course, what's ostracizing or boycotting if it isn't discrimination. In fact, forcing people to serve others they otherwise wouldn't, is equally as discriminating, except now your doing it at the end of a bayonet, or wasting resources defending it in a court of law. People should just grow up.

I don't like arbitrary, capricious or mean-spirirted discrimination, but I like thought crimes and social engineering even worse.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: nrd525 on January 11, 2012, 12:24:09 AM

Now if you can prove that the discrimination is racially motivated, you'd have a case. But you'd have to prove it. Lots of white people are biased against skin heads and it isn't because of reverse racism.

You don't have to prove it. A lawyer would simply have to be able to convince a civil jury that it's likely. It's not criminal to through someone out for any reason, but such a lawsuit has open ended monetary risks. No buisness owner should face such open ended civil suit risks for exercising their own right to do business with whomever they please, and not do buisness with whomever they please.

nrd525

legendary

Activity: 1867

Merit: 1023

Now if you can prove that the discrimination is racially motivated, you'd have a case. But you'd have to prove it. Lots of white people are biased against skin heads and it isn't because of reverse racism.

nrd525

legendary

Activity: 1867

Merit: 1023

Discrimination against skin heads is not based on race, and thus is allowed by the civil rights act. It is based on hair and politics.

The store owner is discriminating against skin heads, not all white people.

Topic: Should a Jewish resturant owner be forced to serve a skinhead? - page 7. (Read 9157 times)