2010 Mid-term Election season starts in the U.S.

[wayfriend]

Additionally, I focus upon business because businesses that don't get business don't stay in business. Therefore, if the only plumber in 50 miles gets know business another plumber will move in to take his business. In other words for a segregationist business to operate it needs to be in community that strongly supports segregation. Does such a community still exist in the U.S.?

Any business that wants to descriminate probably does so because it pleases the clientele that they do want to attract. That's why I say, they're happy to abide by the results.

Sure, another plumber can move in, etc. Discrimination creates a niche like that. Trouble is, then we end up with the white's grocery store and the black's grocery store, etc. It's segregation again, as I said above.

When I say community I don't mean three trailers down at the end of the third dirt road. I mean a real identifiable community that has the numbers to support small private businesses.

Well, I think a lot of the "what's the problem" response tends to assume an urban society, where there's lots of alternatives for anything you need. But those won't be the places where you find rampant discrimination of the type that leads to discrimination of whom you serve. (By and large.) Where you find it is the smaller communities. Just my opionion there. But anyway it's still somewhat short-sighted to assume that urban society when measuring the consequences.

[Vraith]

Where [and how] do you start drawing lines in this, though?
The original property deed and title for my house [which was built in 1890's] included the notation "Do not sell to Italians."...however, suppose right now I'm rich as "the Donald" and I buy a 50 story building in Manhatten. It's mine. Do I get to not rent to Hispanics, or Jews or Muslims if I don't like them? Suppose that makes me even richer, and I buy the whole block? Or start a bank that won't lend money to women?
Business may be private property, but when/how do the people they serve get categorized as "the public" instead of just a bunch of other private citizens? Only when it's not private, but governmental?
Then what about private schools?
I understand that some will argue "other businesses/citizens who DON't do these things will step into the gaps."
And maybe they will...but historically, that hasn't been very successful; and I think the argument under-emphasizes the role of the various -isms...any number of large and small businesses and organizations are sued for these behaviors every year.

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

I'm not sure.

Why not? I don't mean to sound inane, but the Constitutionality here is a major issue. Surely you have an argument of some kind.

"Moral" is subjective.

Oh well. Subjective or not, the government in practice just has that right (to intervene to stop racial discrimination). We've given it to them, as evidenced by our history since the civil rights movement. I think our country has made great civil strides since the federal government has shouldered that responsibility.

Okay. I don't need others to agree with me in order for me to hold my position.

Okay, so the legality of this discussion of a...law has no relevance for you? That makes sense.

Principles are separate from pragmatics! Either you're not reading my posts, or you're not understanding them.

No need to get frustrated. I have both read and understood your posts; I just don't agree with them. I don't see why principles should be separate from pragmatic implementation in any interesting way. We want our principles to guide our actions, and even when we sacrifice our principles for the sake of compromise, we're still enacting the principle of the need to sacrifice for, say, some greater good. In this case, given that we agree (below) that the "principle remains the same: discrimination is wrong," and given that we've legislatively addressed that issue (Civil Rights Act of 1964 et al.), there would have to be some compelling reason to change the pragmatic implementation of that principle. I'll argue that I see no such reason.

The principle remains the same: discrimination is wrong. The method is what's at question: to outlaw, or not?

Again, I'm unclear on the implications of your argument. We have already outlawed discrimination. That much is clear. Are you suggesting we repeal those laws? Or what? Why is "to outlaw, or not?" even a question?

For instance, I think I would have supported the CRA if I lived 40 years ago, even though that contradicts my principles today.

On your nonexistent distinction between principles and pragmatic implementation, would you say that if you had supported the CRA 40 years ago, you would have principally been in favor of it? I think that would be the logical consequence of such support.

Didn't you say something about, "the life of the law has not been logic ..."? I agree. And yet, you're arguing for something as if its logical foundation is settled and (more importantly) unchanging.

What I'm saying is the foundation is unchanged, not unchanging. Again, the life of civil rights law in the United States has indeed been experience. We all agree that experientially we were justified in enacting such legislation. The question now is if our experience has changed meaningfully enough to change those laws? I think not. I think the laws are important buttresses against discriminatory practices that are not only ingrained in the American experience (you agree that discrimination exists today), but are also fundamentally part of human nature (like murdering, raping, etc.). Furthermore, there has been no negative fallout from the legislation that would mandate changing it or repealing it. Business owners' rights to exclude black people hasn't harmed them, at least not in any way that would merit renewing their Jim Crow-era ability to do so. Furthermore, as I said earlier, this just happens to be a case where the law (CRA et al.) is logically, that is to say Constitutionally, justified.

It's just more hidden so we don't know when we're giving our money to racists.

I'm not sure you appreciate the enormous extent to which the CRA is responsible for that hiddenness.

In order to establish its truth, you'd have to provide the logical justification for your "justified" descriptor ... which puts you at odds with your own maxim about the life of law. Either it's based on logic, or you have to admit that times change, which necessitates differing levels of justification.

As I've already said, given the precedent of the law, it's incumbent upon those who want to change it to demonstrate that times have changed to the extent that the laws on the books are obsolete or inappropriate, to show, as Holmes would say, that the life of the law has changed while the law remains the same, to show that the law is harmful. You can't show any of those things. Affirmative action might be such a case, if one could prove that that class of people whom affirmative action was meant to help have been helped, and that others have been harmed as a result. Therefore, one could argue that the experience of those affected by the law has been sufficiently negative to change the law. I don't think the Civil Rights Act is analogous in any meaningful way.

[SerScot]

Vraith,

Deeds aren't covered by the Heart of Atlanta case. There's another case that holds private racially restrictive covenants written into deeds are unenforceable because enforcing them is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. In other words enforcing those covenants requires State action. Libertarians agree State action that violates equal protection is wrong.

[wayfriend]

Nothing new here, but came across this on CNN, and it's relevant.

... We do, after all, allow government to say that murder is unacceptable -- in private and public spaces. On lesser issues (Are mustaches acceptable? Can men wear purple tights? What political party do you belong to?) most Americans think it's none of the government's business what happens in a private home or private business.

But on race, as on murder, since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, most Americans have agreed that the issue is important -- more than important, foundational -- enough that the government can and should regulate what happens in the private sphere.

... Libertarians -- and this is a serious, sophisticated argument -- say that the market can and would correct for this. They say that customers would shun, say, restaurants and hotels and national brands that discriminated on the basis of race and that eventually those bigoted operations would go out of business.

The libertarians' point is that there's no need, in fact it's inappropriate, for the government to get involved. But the fact is the market didn't correct for widespread and pervasive discrimination of this kind in the Jim Crow era. On the contrary, it flourished widely in America for 100 years after the Civil War.

It was this failure that drove the civil rights revolution. And the rationale for the federal government's long reach into what happened at private accommodations such as lunch counters made perfect sense at the time.

Does that rationale still apply today -- nearly five decades after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and two years into the presidency of the first black president, Barack Obama?

I think most Americans would say it does, that racial equality is important enough to who and what we are as a nation that the long arm of government should reach into the private realm and bar discrimination there -- just as it bars murder.

Of course, libertarians have every right to disagree with that. That they do doesn't make them racists. Poor, befuddled Paul couldn't seem to figure out if he did or didn't agree (although he later said that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act). But what his cartoon controversy underscores is the complexity of the issue.

Yes, many Americans, including me, think the government is overreaching now -- badly overreaching.

But as all government all the time is not the answer, so no government ever is surely just as wrong. ...

[Lord Mhoram]

I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.

I think most Americans would say it does, that racial equality is important enough to who and what we are as a nation that the long arm of government should reach into the private realm and bar discrimination there -- just as it bars murder.

I think that's about right. It's important enough, necessary enough, and dependent upon enforcement enough that racial discrimination should remain robustly illegal.

[SerScot]

LM,

I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.

I think most Americans would say it does, that racial equality is important enough to who and what we are as a nation that the long arm of government should reach into the private realm and bar discrimination there -- just as it bars murder.

I think that's about right. It's important enough, necessary enough, and dependent upon enforcement enough that racial discrimination should remain robustly illegal.

But it doesn't remain "robustly illegal". All a bar, restaruant, or club needs to do is declare itself "members only" to avoid the holding of Heart of Atlanta and the terms of the CRA. Using my method, saying resort to police or other public office to enforce invidious discrimination by a private business deals with that issue because it focuses on the use of the State to enforce discriminatory practices.

[Lord Mhoram]

Scot,

But it doesn't remain "robustly illegal".

I guess it just depends on what we mean by "robustly." I think the brazen illegality of putting up a "Whites only" in front of any business is pretty robust. Plus when any business that a court determines to be engaging in interstate commerce means the CRA is enforceable, per Heart. So does your method involve repealing the interstate commerce title of the CRA?

[SerScot]

LM,

Scot,

But it doesn't remain "robustly illegal".

I guess it just depends on what we mean by "robustly." I think the brazen illegality of putting up a "Whites only" in front of any business is pretty robust. Plus when any business that a court determines to be engaging in interstate commerce means the CRA is enforceable, per Heart. So does your method involve repealing the interstate commerce title of the CRA?

No, it gives it a different method of enforcement. It tells private clubs they can't call the police to remove people who are violating their "Racial Group X" club rules. In the same way a racially based covenant in a deed is unenforceable.

[wayfriend]

It tells private clubs they can't call the police to remove people who are violating their "Racial Group X" club rules.

No chance of that turning ugly ...

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

Lunch counter sit-ins were without incident?

[Vraith]

Wayfriend,

Lunch counter sit-ins were without incident?

ummm...hmmm...It might be interesting to research as many of these as records are available for and find out the statistical truth, but most of the actual violence readily available for public consumption was white, often cop inclusive in these situations.

But on the previous point: what's to stop the owner from claiming trespass/robbery/whatever they want, and just removing [or, god forbid shooting] the violaters themselsves?
What you're proposing just leads to thousands of mutually exclusive laws in various jurisdictions, with an infinitude of different punishments [or none] all based on arguing tiny technicalities in local courts all over the country...and that's just the beginning.
I really, truly, understand the principle behind the argument...and actually wish it were true.
But if history is any clue, this ends up being, eventually, the people who really really are annoyed by class warfare being ok with race warfare.

[Avatar]

Yeah, I must say I don't see it happening anyway.

--A

[wayfriend]

Wayfriend,

Lunch counter sit-ins were without incident?

Did we enjoy them?

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

I would think very few people enjoyed sit-ins. But they were effective, IMHO.

[Zarathustra]

Why not? I don't mean to sound inane, but the Constitutionality here is a major issue. Surely you have an argument of some kind.

It's my opinion that the federal government has no right to dictate what you do with your private property, as long as you don't hurt anyone else. But there's that damn commerce clause, and a history of SCOTUS decisions which give it virtually unlimited power to meddle in the private sector. In order to avoid debating that entire issue, I thought an honest, "I don't know" would be sufficient. I don't know the legal history of how the CRA came into being, or what arguments were used to make sure it was Constitutional. Just because you think it's a major issue doesn't mean I have an argument. Please be satisfied with a frank admission of my ignorance--or you can enlighten me with your own research. I'll be happy to read your argument.

Subjective or not, the government in practice just has that right (to intervene to stop racial discrimination). We've given it to them, as evidenced by our history since the civil rights movement.

Well, no argument there ... that is, if we ignore the argument. I'm well aware that we've ceded to the government this power. But whether or not it should have that power is the heart of the debate. We'll probably never agree on that. I have little hope of turning you into a Libertarian.

Okay, so the legality of this discussion of a...law has no relevance for you? That makes sense.

Legality is something argued by lawyers, and interpretted by judges. I'm neither. So you're right: the legality has zero relevance to me, since I'm arguing against the rationale for the law.

I don't see why principles should be separate from pragmatic implementation in any interesting way.

Well, I gave an example. The CRA violates my conservative principles of limited government, but I still would have voted for it and I think it has achieved immeasurable good. That's not interesting? It provides my ideological opponents with all the ammunition they need to point out that my principles can be deficient in practice--in very important ways. I thought you'd consider that an interesting admission.

We want our principles to guide our actions, and even when we sacrifice our principles for the sake of compromise, we're still enacting the principle of the need to sacrifice for, say, some greater good.

Okay, sure. I do have higher principles than my conception of the perfect government. But in terms of arguing the CRA from the perspective of Libertarian vs liberal ideology, for instance, I'm required to step outside of my own political perspective to achive a greater good. You are not required to make this move, because your pragmatic position already aligns with your principles. So this particular cognitive dissonance isn't something you have to acknowledge or deal with. I deal with it by noting that there are different ways to achieve a goal, depending on the time and place. That's a pragmatic issue. In the 60s, perhaps a purely Libertarian principle couldn't have worked. Now, I think it could. That temporal and situational change represents a disconnect of principle and practice.

But even my "higher principle" is something that can be violated if it needs to be. Just to imagine the most radical scenario possible ... let's suppose that Obama gets assassinated, and blacks decide it's time for a race war to get revenge. In that case, I could conceive of a situation where discrimination would once again have a place in our culture.

No principle is absolute. The pragmatics of survival is the ultimate "principle."

The principle remains the same: discrimination is wrong. The method is what's at question: to outlaw, or not?

Again, I'm unclear on the implications of your argument. We have already outlawed discrimination. That much is clear. Are you suggesting we repeal those laws? Or what? Why is "to outlaw, or not?" even a question?

It's a question because we're debating the logic and rationale of the CRA. I'm not suggesting that we repeal anything. This is a purely hypothetical discussion brought on by the fact that Paul has a certain position, which is subject to potential distortion, and discussing the rationales behind this issue is a means of elucidating his position to avoid distortion.

We all agree that experientially we were justified in enacting such legislation. The question now is if our experience has changed meaningfully enough to change those laws? I think not. I think the laws are important buttresses against discriminatory practices that are not only ingrained in the American experience (you agree that discrimination exists today), but are also fundamentally part of human nature (like murdering, raping, etc.).

Just because something is "part of human nature" doesn't mean that all humans are guilty of it. I don't believe that society as a whole should have its freedom limited for a small percentage of assholes. For instance, just because some people murder is no reason to take away my right to bear arms.

Furthermore, there has been no negative fallout from the legislation that would mandate changing it or repealing it.

Well, now we have to talk about that "nonexistent" distinction between principle and practice. Yes, you're right that businesses haven't been harmed by allowing blacks to shop. But that's a pragmatic point. In terms of principle, the concept of limited government and personal freedom has been harmed quite a bit. The more the government does for us, the more we get arguments like: "Subjective or not, the government in practice just has that right ... We've given it to them ..." We begin to think that something is okay merely because that's the way we've always done it. But that's exactly how something like slavery becomes an accepted practice! If we don't distinguish between principles/practice, the way things are done in practice start to become the principle.

And so every step the government takes in limiting our freedom becomes accepted as "that's just the way we do it," even when there's another way to do it! We start to think that the government is justified in doing it, simply because it does it. Surely you can see that's a circular argument (or maybe not, given your quote above).

The problem started with the government. We formed a "Land of the Free" which nevertheless allowed slavery to be legal. The CRA (not to mention the Civil War) was necessary to correct that government problem, that institutionalized contradiction that never should have happened. If slavery was illegal from the beginning, and we never had to fight a war that pitted brother against brother, state against state, perhaps we would never have had a society that required the government intervention in its self-caused problem. Perhaps if we had all been free from the beginning, we wouldn't have to violate freedom in order to correct that contradiction.

I don't really expect you to see the harm in piecemeal acceptance of government control. Again, you're not a Libertarian. But personally I see grave harm in increasing control over a society that is itself increasingly open-minded. The government and the people are moving in opposite directions. As we get richer, the government sees MORE need for economic aid (control). As we get more open-minded, the government enforces more and more laws to enact "social justice." It's like America is growing into an adult while our government treats us more and more like children. I don't want the government to tell me what to do and take care of me. I want the promise of our Founders. In today's society, we have the ability to be that country even more than they did. And yet, for some reason, people who believe as you see ever increasing need for government control. In my opinion, that "some reason" is based on nothing more than what you offered above: "the government in practice just has that right ... We've given it to them ..."

I think that kind of complacency is dangerous to freedom.

It's just more hidden so we don't know when we're giving our money to racists.

I'm not sure you appreciate the enormous extent to which the CRA is responsible for that hiddenness.

Of course I recognize it. I'm blaming the CRA for it. As I've said: I would rather know who the racists are so I can choose not to give them my money.

[wayfriend]

Wayfriend,

I would think very few people enjoyed sit-ins. But they were effective, IMHO.

So ... if I following your argument .... sit-ins were effective ... sit-ins had violent turns ... police not supporting discrimination on private property could lead to violent turns ... therefore, police not supporting discrimination on private property would be effective.

???

[Rawedge Rim]

Very well put, LM.

My point about slavery and illegals above was in reference to one of Z's comments a couple of pages back -- about whether anybody seriously thought slavery would come back if that part of the CRA was repealed. My point was that if people thought they could get away with it, they would. And I was thinking in terms of skin color -- that just because we wouldn't dream of enslaving Negroes now, doesn't mean we wouldn't enslave *some*body. Hispanics were the first nonwhite race that came to mind. (Reminds me of a routine by the late, great Freddie Prinze, about how immigrants to the US start out cleaning toilets here. Right now it's the Hispanics cleaning the toilets, he said, and then he said, "That's why the Chinese are so quiet -- they know they're next." )

In two posts you have made the assumption that it would be "whites" apparently leading the charge to create a slave class. Have you perhaps considered that in fact the many "blacks" might actually join in on this. I remember a number of cases where there was a tremendous animosity between blacks and Koreans in some of the inner-city areas, not to mention the animosity betwee blacks and latino's in these same areas.

[aliantha]

Very well put, LM.

My point about slavery and illegals above was in reference to one of Z's comments a couple of pages back -- about whether anybody seriously thought slavery would come back if that part of the CRA was repealed. My point was that if people thought they could get away with it, they would. And I was thinking in terms of skin color -- that just because we wouldn't dream of enslaving Negroes now, doesn't mean we wouldn't enslave *some*body. Hispanics were the first nonwhite race that came to mind. (Reminds me of a routine by the late, great Freddie Prinze, about how immigrants to the US start out cleaning toilets here. Right now it's the Hispanics cleaning the toilets, he said, and then he said, "That's why the Chinese are so quiet -- they know they're next." )

In two posts you have made the assumption that it would be "whites" apparently leading the charge to create a slave class. Have you perhaps considered that in fact the many "blacks" might actually join in on this. I remember a number of cases where there was a tremendous animosity between blacks and Koreans in some of the inner-city areas, not to mention the animosity betwee blacks and latino's in these same areas.

Good point, RR, thanks.

[Rawedge Rim]

Very well put, LM.

My point about slavery and illegals above was in reference to one of Z's comments a couple of pages back -- about whether anybody seriously thought slavery would come back if that part of the CRA was repealed. My point was that if people thought they could get away with it, they would. And I was thinking in terms of skin color -- that just because we wouldn't dream of enslaving Negroes now, doesn't mean we wouldn't enslave *some*body. Hispanics were the first nonwhite race that came to mind. (Reminds me of a routine by the late, great Freddie Prinze, about how immigrants to the US start out cleaning toilets here. Right now it's the Hispanics cleaning the toilets, he said, and then he said, "That's why the Chinese are so quiet -- they know they're next." )

In two posts you have made the assumption that it would be "whites" apparently leading the charge to create a slave class. Have you perhaps considered that in fact the many "blacks" might actually join in on this. I remember a number of cases where there was a tremendous animosity between blacks and Koreans in some of the inner-city areas, not to mention the animosity betwee blacks and latino's in these same areas.

Good point, RR, thanks.

'course I've made an assumption that you are "white", and I have no real basis for said assumption