On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:25:24 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:31:21 GMT, wrote:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
egroups.com...
From:
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:45:57 GMT

That someone would refuse tol hire or serve someone soley on the basis
of
skin color is a ridiculous notion and only idiots would behave that way.

And idiots do behave that way, even with the current laws.

That being said, your friend's position is correct. Forcing people to
hire
and/or serve those they choose not to doesn't make them love them any
more
or remove the bigotry. Capitalism, however is color blind and it was
evident that capitalism was moving towards breaking down racist barriers
when the government stepped in.

Just as it was in South Africa, another capitalist country.

Did the world not apply pressure and cause change?

ummmm, you mean *governments*, right?


At the insistence of the people.

Well, yes. The "marketplace" didn't insist, did it?

Surely you don't think that worldwide consumers help change South
African policy...

By refusing to do business with S. African companies, yes.

You're kidding, right? the only influence the marketplace had was
government induced. That's something that you're against, right?

(Oh, wait.
That wasn't a market correction.) So a business stops serving 12% of
the potential market (in the case of blacks nationwide, or less locally
where I am). Your position is the other 88% would rush to their aid,
stop buying from the store (or whatever business), and that business
would fail.

Is it your position that no white South Africans were for giving black
South Africans their full human rights, and that doing so exposed them to
horror and brutality from the white government?

Nice reductio ad absurdum argument.

If that's your way of saying that my pont is valid, thank you.

Well, not exactly.

That night work if only one business did it. I personally think in some
locations a whole bunch would.

Certainly there was ample reason for the Federal government to act on
behalf
of making sure all people who wanted to could vote and that all the
rights

Why wouldn't that market (of potential voters) have followed your same
rationale as your business model?

With South Africa there was pressure from within and without. Like most
real life situations there were some people on both sides who were less
than
heroic.

The pressure that really mattered was governmental.

What are governments in free countries? They are representatives of the
people. People lobbied for action against S. Africa.

So, when people lobby for civil rights by demanding that American
businesses act in a socially conscious way, do you claim that some
special libertarian stricture forbids such behavior?

guaranteed under the Consitiution were being granted to all persons.
There
is however no civil right to shop or trespass on the private property of
those who would refuse to grant someone access to do business. The
concept
of public place first had to be corrupted to mean any place open to the
public, instead of places supported by public tax money.

There is no civil right to own a business either.

I disagree. If there is one right it is the right to property and a
business is property.

So, it's legal to traffic in human slaves?

Only if you are stupid enough to think that humans should be considered
property of someone other than ones self. You own your own life, nobody
else should be allowed to, without your consent.

So, the right of humans supercedes some artificial construct that
allows business to do whatever they want, because they are "private
property", right?

Heck, if YOU can use reductio ad absurdum arguments, so can I.


I spoke of real events. Yes people once allowed for slavery. It was an
obvious mistake.
Aparthied was as well, which is why it eventually failed.

It only failed once governments put their weight behind change. If you
were a strict constructionist libertarian, you'd think that businesses
could run their businesses without government interference...

The right to conduct business is obviously restricted, even to the
staunchest libertarian. The question is, in America, where do you draw
the line? At a person's skin color? For a century and a half, we did
both, and despite your protestations, the marketplace didn't respond
on its own.

But I see in your
mind that he who as the gold, makes the rules.

NO, in my mind the rules are to make sure that no matter how much gold or
how little one has, the same rules apply.

So, prior to Brown vs. Board of Education (which opened the
floodgates), did this happen?

The 14th Amendment

And yet, in 1954, a black person couldn't get admitted to Ole Miss
(University of Mississippi). In 1950, Jackie Robinson was refused
service in "whites only" businesses all over the country. Over 80
years later, the "marketplace" hadn't forced the US to comply with the
Constitution.

The 15th Amendment.

What year was that ratified? Did the "marketplace" support that
amendment? How long does it take before the government should enforce
the Constitution?

Congress passes civil rights act granted equal rights in public
accommodations and jury duty, in 1875.
National Congress on the Negro convened in 1909, leading to founding of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

There were steps taken before that. It was a slow process, but it was an
inevitiable conclusion.

So says you. And yet, without government intervention, we might STILL
be holding our breath.

Are you telling me that prior to that
landmark event, there were no people that hated the idea of segregated
business? This is the same argument that you used for South Africa,
you know.

And it doesn't matter
that certain classes of people have always been and are to this day
(although to a lesser extent, thanks to laws) excluded from
participating.

See above.

Here's a secret: I don't believe the liberals get it either. They're
just a step closer than the conservatives, or apparently, the
libertarians. But you can't package a program or a set of laws and say
the job's done, either.

Not so long as there is freedom, there will always be people who choose to
believe nonsense. That a man's character is determined by skin color
rather
than the content of his character, is one such nonsensical belief.

And yet, for many years, skin color (and sex) determined whether or
not a person could even vote. Or eat in a diner. Or drink at a
"public" water fountain. Or marry outside the race. Or attend a
"public" university.


In the South. The rest of the country was a bit more civilized.

You're kidding, right? You need to do a little research on segregation
in other parts of the country. Just like you need to apparently do
some research on the racial makeup of the civil rights movement.

A restaruant, a movie theatre, or any business thatis owned by a private
person or persons, is not a public place, it is private property and
people
have the right to be assholes and refuse to take the money of patrons
who
are not wanted for whatever reason.

They should also, therefore, have the right to do whatever else they
like.

Only so long as they don't violate the rights of others.

And those rights aren't determined by the "marketplace", are they?

Where did I say they were? I said that the marketplace doesn't care about
discrimination, it only cares about customers. Plessy vs. Fergusson is an
example of a company challenging a stupid law in order to accomodate their
customers and their shareholders.

And yet, this perpetuated the very behavior that you *claim* to abhor.

Prostitution with minors, sexual harrassment (she could work
elsewhere, after all), drugs, serving alcohol regardless of age, cock
fights... There are a whole host of laws that should be stricken, yes?

You listed some that should and some that shouldn't. Are you not able to
focus on which is which?

I happen to align myself with the libertarians when it comes to
certain behaviors. I'm sure that this creeps you out.


Not at all, that's one of the few areas where I agree with liberals.

Well then, we have some common ground gasp

And those damned Hollywood liberals keep bringing up child labor laws
and sweat shops.

The laws that once passed caused families to either starve or become
welfare
dependent?
While I abhor the idea that a child should need to work to keep his family
from starving, it is still better than using force to take money from
other
s who earned it and give it to those who didn't.

Oh really? You might want to take a deep breath and consider the
ramifications.


I just did see above.

I'm afraid that you didn't.

Not the Republicans, not the libertarians, but those
damned Hollywood liberals.

I know that this idea is one that is going to be ridiculed and called
racist, but if private property has any menaing then this is part of the
meaning. I would never support any business that had such a policy, and
I'm
sure there are plenty of other people with the same view. When any
business
with a racist policy started losing business or saw other businesses
gaining
on them as competitors because of their racism, I think things would
have
changed on their own without government intervention and weakening of
the
meaning of private property.

Well, both racist and ignorant. You forgot ignorant.

I believe it is the responsibility of the majority to insure the rights
of the minority, whether in race, religion, gender, sexual orientation,
or whatever. It's easy for you to think like you do as a member of the
majority. We don't have to think about our skin color, ever, unless we
happen to take a wrong turn and find ourselves in a 'minority
neighborhood.' Did you hear the majority over the past few weeks? "They
aren't calling it Christmas. It's the 'holidays' now. That ****es me
off!" That was all over the opinion pages and the radio. This is a fine
thing to get mad about if you happen to be a Christian. Personally, I
prefer holidays. But it's an illustration how majorities can act if
left unchecked.

I think there is a line between true private property (your home) and
private property that is open to the public (businesses, aprtments or
other rental properties, and so on). Think what you'd like at home. If
you don't want to serve minorities at a restaurant or a business, then
you have every right not to open a restaurant or business, or to own a
rental property.

Then you have effectively abolished private property and at the every
least
entered onto a slippery slope where all property is subject to theft by
government.

There is nothing black and white about ANYTHING in this world,
especially in a capitalistic society. That's what you give up for this
vaunted freedom that you worship, the ability to define things in
black and white.

I disagree. I think there is only black and white. Something is either
good or evil. The tricky part is sorting out which is which, therefore we
have courts.

Not "marketplaces"??!!?? I thought that they were the savior of
everything that was holy.

Your civil liberties are intact. You appear to believe
that private property takes priority over a minority's right to life,
liberty and a pursuit happiness.

I don't think one takes priority over another.

Not from what you've written...

I don't think violating
property rights in the name of equality is a good message. It only makes
it seem as if it's OK to violate property if you have enough power.

Don't the "people" have "power"?


It is the fundamental right. Without it all no other rights are fully
possible.
There is no civil right to buy a hamburger or go to a movie theatre.

Sure there is. Why wouldn't there be in our society?

Because there is no right to the fruits of someone else's labor if they
don't want to engage in commerce with you.

and yet, someone doesn't have the unfettered right to conduct business
the way that THEY want to. You've already admitted this.

That leaves a market open for someone else to cater to.

And yet, if there's a disenfranchised market, what do you do?

Are you now
saying that there's no inherent right in a capitalistic society to
indulge in the spoils of such a society? Are you SURE that you want to
go that route?

There
is a right to legally buy a restaraunt or theatre and allow whom you would
like to buy a ticket.

If there's no civil right to enjoy the products of those type of
businesses, how can there be a right to offer them in the first place?


There's a right to enjoy what you purchase from someone who wishes to sell
you a product, there's no inherernt right to buy that product.

snip

I note that you're STILL struggling with how to respond to my previous
response to your rather ill-thought-out tome of a couple of days ago.
I assume that you'll be struggling for a while longer.

Refresh my memory.

I guess you'll just have to go back to my recent post. It's not like
I've posted a lot in the past 3 or 4 days...