Should a Jewish resturant owner be forced to serve a skinhead?

[SgtSpike]

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.

[1714493179]

1714493179

[1714493179]

1714493179

[P4man]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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]

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.

[SgtSpike]

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.

[FredericBastiat]

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?

[P4man]

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.

[P4man]

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.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[P4man]

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).

[FredericBastiat]

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.

[nrd525]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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).

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

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

[bb113]

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.

[mad_miner]

The 'de facto' segregation of the northern states was a shadow of the reality of the legally enforced segregation of the south.  

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

[bb113]

The 'de facto' segregation of the northern states was a shadow of the reality of the legally enforced segregation of the south.  

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

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?

[MoonShadow]

The 'de facto' segregation of the northern states was a shadow of the reality of the legally enforced segregation of the south.  

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

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.

[NghtRppr]

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.

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.