Earlier I asked you this question. I am repeating it because I am
interested in how you, as a self-professed libertarian, would answer:

I have a friend who says that he's a libertarian. He says that
businesses should be allowed to not allow blacks, muslims, or any other

minority or class of people, into them, or that they should not be
required to hire them if they do not want to. The market, he claims,
will 'make the adjustment if their position is incorrect' (which of
course ignores the fact that the other 88% of the population would not
care, as it does not effect them), and that to force a business to
serve anybody, or to hire anybody, that they do not want to is against
their civil liberties.

How do you feel about that position?

So do you agree or disagree with my friend's statement?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
Earlier I asked you this question. I am repeating it because I am
interested in how you, as a self-professed libertarian, would answer:

I have a friend who says that he's a libertarian. He says that
businesses should be allowed to not allow blacks, muslims, or any other

minority or class of people, into them, or that they should not be
required to hire them if they do not want to. The market, he claims,
will 'make the adjustment if their position is incorrect' (which of
course ignores the fact that the other 88% of the population would not
care, as it does not effect them), and that to force a business to
serve anybody, or to hire anybody, that they do not want to is against
their civil liberties.

How do you feel about that position?

So do you agree or disagree with my friend's statement?

You know, there's something oddly familiar about the style of this
post. A certain George Middius often poses loaded questions in exactly
this way.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Earlier I asked you this question. I am repeating it because I am
interested in how you, as a self-professed libertarian, would answer:

I have a friend who says that he's a libertarian. He says that
businesses should be allowed to not allow blacks, muslims, or any other

minority or class of people, into them, or that they should not be
required to hire them if they do not want to. The market, he claims,
will 'make the adjustment if their position is incorrect' (which of
course ignores the fact that the other 88% of the population would not
care, as it does not effect them), and that to force a business to
serve anybody, or to hire anybody, that they do not want to is against
their civil liberties.

How do you feel about that position?

So do you agree or disagree with my friend's statement?

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.
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.

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
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.

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

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.

paul packer said:

You know, there's something oddly familiar about the style of this
post. A certain George Middius often poses loaded questions in exactly
this way.

Speaking of which, paulie, how many GB does your kiddie porn collection
fill now? ;-)

wrote in message
ink.net...

I know that this idea is one that is going to be ridiculed and called

What is ridiculed is the fact that a barely literate, uneducable dolt like
you are explaining capitalism in a public forum.

Only in America, as Don King would say...


Cheers,

Margaret

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:45:57 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

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
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.

That's because there are few "private businesses" that haven't
benefitted from public largess, whether or not it's the roads that
bring customers to their doors, or the power that keeps their lights
running, or, heck, being beholden to the very Constitution that has
made it possible for them to operate freely. Are they somehow exempted
from operating in the spirit and/or letter of the Constitution because
they don't want races to share lunch counters?

Of course, as we know, the Constitution wasn't a perfect document to
begin with. That's why they allowed amendments that *expanded* the
*true* spirit of the Constitution to include *all* of its citizens.

Thank god that strict constructionists have been limited in their
sphere of influence. Otherwise, my friend Rob would still be only
3/5th of a person and my sister wouldn't be able to vote.

Oh yeah, you claim that capitalism was moving toward equality when the
government stepped in. What evidence do you have for that? I'd say
virtually none. Without government intervention, we'd either still be
where we were in 1949 or we'd be in smoking ruins after the
ineveitable rend in the social fabric.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:45:57 GMT, wrote:

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.

It didn't change for over 150 years on its own. It didn't change even
after a civil war. What makes you think that the marketplace would
have adapted? I see no substantial evidence of this being true.

\The problem with your theory is that when you disenfrancise a whole
segment of the population, their economic influence (the very
influence that you claim as a "force for good") is virtually nil. If
you can't even afford to apply financial pressure on a business to
change their policies that snub you, how much change do you think is
going to happen?

"paul packer" wrote in message
ups.com...

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
Earlier I asked you this question. I am repeating it because I am
interested in how you, as a self-professed libertarian, would answer:

I have a friend who says that he's a libertarian. He says that
businesses should be allowed to not allow blacks, muslims, or any other

minority or class of people, into them, or that they should not be
required to hire them if they do not want to. The market, he claims,
will 'make the adjustment if their position is incorrect' (which of
course ignores the fact that the other 88% of the population would not
care, as it does not effect them), and that to force a business to
serve anybody, or to hire anybody, that they do not want to is against
their civil liberties.

How do you feel about that position?

So do you agree or disagree with my friend's statement?

You know, there's something oddly familiar about the style of this
post. A certain George Middius often poses loaded questions in exactly
this way.

But George already knows how I would answer.
There is of course no limit to his deviousness.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:45:57 GMT, wrote:

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.

It didn't change for over 150 years on its own. It didn't change even
after a civil war. What makes you think that the marketplace would
have adapted? I see no substantial evidence of this being true.


Plessy vs. Ferguson for one.

\The problem with your theory is that when you disenfrancise a whole
segment of the population, their economic influence (the very
influence that you claim as a "force for good") is virtually nil.

It would not be only those who are disenfranchised that would be able to
apply pressure, as I stated in the original response.

If
you can't even afford to apply financial pressure on a business to
change their policies that snub you, how much change do you think is
going to happen?

There were never anything but impoverished black people before the Civil
Rights movement?
No doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.?

Would you do business with a known racicst?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:45:57 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

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
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.

That's because there are few "private businesses" that haven't
benefitted from public largess, whether or not it's the roads that
bring customers to their doors, or the power that keeps their lights
running, or, heck, being beholden to the very Constitution that has
made it possible for them to operate freely. Are they somehow exempted
from operating in the spirit and/or letter of the Constitution because
they don't want races to share lunch counters?

Of course, as we know, the Constitution wasn't a perfect document to
begin with. That's why they allowed amendments that *expanded* the
*true* spirit of the Constitution to include *all* of its citizens.

Thank god that strict constructionists have been limited in their
sphere of influence. Otherwise, my friend Rob would still be only
3/5th of a person and my sister wouldn't be able to vote.


That you think that would still be the case speaks to your lack of
confidence and your own bigotry.

Oh yeah, you claim that capitalism was moving toward equality when the
government stepped in. What evidence do you have for that? I'd say
virtually none. Without government intervention, we'd either still be
where we were in 1949 or we'd be in smoking ruins after the
ineveitable rend in the social fabric.

Plessy vs. Ferguson, is the most famous example. Capitalism wants to
attract new customers and if they have money, it wants them to be able to
spend it comfort.

There was a Civil Rights movement and it was not made up of persons of
color.

I don't know how you were raised but I was taught that racism was evil and
that people should be judged on their values, not their skin color. I
suspect I was not the only one.

"Margaret von B." wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

I know that this idea is one that is going to be ridiculed and called

What is ridiculed is the fact that a barely literate, uneducable dolt like
you are explaining capitalism in a public forum.

Even if that were true, it's a sad statement on how few people seemm to
undertstand what capitalism is and why itis the only moral economic system.

Only in America, as Don King would say...


Probably not, but in America first.

Cheers,

Margaret

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:44:56 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:45:57 GMT, wrote:

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.

It didn't change for over 150 years on its own. It didn't change even
after a civil war. What makes you think that the marketplace would
have adapted? I see no substantial evidence of this being true.


Plessy vs. Ferguson for one.

How did the assertion of "separate but equal" facilities before the
turn of the 20th century change businesses' discriminatory practices?

\The problem with your theory is that when you disenfrancise a whole
segment of the population, their economic influence (the very
influence that you claim as a "force for good") is virtually nil.

It would not be only those who are disenfranchised that would be able to
apply pressure, as I stated in the original response.

Well, it didn't work for over 150 years. Once again, I have to ask you
for any evidence that the marketplace on its own would have changed to
allow blacks to, say, dine with me in a restaurant? The Civil Rights
movement didn't even really get its start until after the government
intervened. Nashville was the home of one of the first lunch counter
revolutions and that didn't happen until half a decade after Brown vs.
Little Rock Board of Education (or whatever it was called).


If
you can't even afford to apply financial pressure on a business to
change their policies that snub you, how much change do you think is
going to happen?

There were never anything but impoverished black people before the Civil
Rights movement?
No doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.?

Very few. The exception doesn't prove the rule. Booker T. Washington
happened at the turn of the century and yet, in 1956, blacks still
couldn't attend institutions such as Ole Miss and Alabama (to name two
of the most prominent such institutions).

Would you do business with a known racicst?

You're preaching to the choir here. Do you think that your
grandparents did business with known racists? The answer to that is
absolutely. They couldn't have avoided it (at least institutionalized
racism).

If it weren't for government intervention, you would still be in the
same boat as your grandparents.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:51:05 GMT, wrote:

Thank god that strict constructionists have been limited in their
sphere of influence. Otherwise, my friend Rob would still be only
3/5th of a person and my sister wouldn't be able to vote.


That you think that would still be the case speaks to your lack of
confidence and your own bigotry.

You're joking of course. I'm looking at history, but apparently you
aren't.

Oh yeah, you claim that capitalism was moving toward equality when the
government stepped in. What evidence do you have for that? I'd say
virtually none. Without government intervention, we'd either still be
where we were in 1949 or we'd be in smoking ruins after the
ineveitable rend in the social fabric.

Plessy vs. Ferguson, is the most famous example.

So, you're telling me that you believe in the tenet of separate but
equal?

Capitalism wants to
attract new customers and if they have money,

Eye, there's the rub. But ask yourself this. Could Jackie Robinson eat
where your grandparents ate even though he probably had more moeny
then they did?

it wants them to be able to
spend it comfort.

Only after 1954-1964.

There was a Civil Rights movement and it was not made up of persons of
color.

Only after the National Guard was sent to Little Rock. to enforce
desegregation. Before that, discrimination was the status quo.

And yes, it WAS made up of persons of color as well as whites. Have
you forgotten Medgar Evers, James Meredith, Dr. Martin Luther King?
Murdered in driveway, shot almost to death, murdered at motel...

If you think that there weren't persons of color in the Civil Rights
movement, then you're sadly mistaken. 1/3rd of the young civil rights
workers murdered in MS in the famous '64 incident were black.

I don't know how you were raised but I was taught that racism was evil and
that people should be judged on their values, not their skin color. I
suspect I was not the only one.

It's easy for you to say that since you were pretty much raised after
1954. You're ignoring 160 years of institutionalized racism.

wrote in message
nk.net...

[snip

I don't know how you were raised but I was taught that racism was evil and
that people should be judged on their values, not their skin color. I
suspect I was not the only one.
If you see a mckelviphibian, do not squish it into the sidewalk.

Dispose of mikeys in a humane fashion.

wrote in message
ink.net...


So do you agree or disagree with my friend's statement?

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.
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.


Its people that practice Capitalism, and there are certainly too many
who are NOT colorblind.

BTW, to answer the question, there is no 'absolute' right
to run a business. Businesses are customarily licensed by the
government, and must follow lots of governmental regulations to be able
to hold that license.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"dave weil" wrote in message
...



If it weren't for government intervention, you would still be in the
same boat as your grandparents.


Oh dear!!
That boat was scrapped many years ago.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:51:05 GMT, wrote:

Thank god that strict constructionists have been limited in their
sphere of influence. Otherwise, my friend Rob would still be only
3/5th of a person and my sister wouldn't be able to vote.


That you think that would still be the case speaks to your lack of
confidence and your own bigotry.

You're joking of course. I'm looking at history, but apparently you
aren't.

Oh yeah, you claim that capitalism was moving toward equality when the
government stepped in. What evidence do you have for that? I'd say
virtually none. Without government intervention, we'd either still be
where we were in 1949 or we'd be in smoking ruins after the
ineveitable rend in the social fabric.

Plessy vs. Ferguson, is the most famous example.

So, you're telling me that you believe in the tenet of separate but
equal?

Of course not. The point is that it was a case that was challenging the
separation of the races.

Capitalism wants to
attract new customers and if they have money,

Eye, there's the rub. But ask yourself this. Could Jackie Robinson eat
where your grandparents ate even though he probably had more moeny
then they did?

it wants them to be able to
spend it comfort.

Only after 1954-1964.

Some struggles take a long time.

There was a Civil Rights movement and it was not made up of persons of
color.

Only after the National Guard was sent to Little Rock. to enforce
desegregation. Before that, discrimination was the status quo.


Therefore what? It can't ever change?

And yes, it WAS made up of persons of color as well as whites. Have
you forgotten Medgar Evers, James Meredith, Dr. Martin Luther King?
Murdered in driveway, shot almost to death, murdered at motel...

No, I have not forgotten, that was the point, the fight for equal rights was
not fought only by those who were being oppressed.

If you think that there weren't persons of color in the Civil Rights
movement, then you're sadly mistaken. 1/3rd of the young civil rights
workers murdered in MS in the famous '64 incident were black.

I don't know how you were raised but I was taught that racism was evil and
that people should be judged on their values, not their skin color. I
suspect I was not the only one.

It's easy for you to say that since you were pretty much raised after
1954. You're ignoring 160 years of institutionalized racism.

I was born in 1949, and I do remember the TV showing coverage of the
National Guard in Little Rock. I was taught that people should be treated
equally and never found any reason to believe there was any reason not to.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:44:56 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:45:57 GMT, wrote:

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.

It didn't change for over 150 years on its own. It didn't change even
after a civil war. What makes you think that the marketplace would
have adapted? I see no substantial evidence of this being true.


Plessy vs. Ferguson for one.

How did the assertion of "separate but equal" facilities before the
turn of the 20th century change businesses' discriminatory practices?


That was not the reason for the case being brought, it was to challenge an
unjust law.

\The problem with your theory is that when you disenfrancise a whole
segment of the population, their economic influence (the very
influence that you claim as a "force for good") is virtually nil.

It would not be only those who are disenfranchised that would be able to
apply pressure, as I stated in the original response.

Well, it didn't work for over 150 years. Once again, I have to ask you
for any evidence that the marketplace on its own would have changed to
allow blacks to, say, dine with me in a restaurant?

Segregation did not exist in all states, eventually capitalism and the
search for new markets would have brought it to an end. That plus the
pressure from groups opposed to segregstion.

The Civil Rights
movement didn't even really get its start until after the government
intervened.

Then why did they intervene?

Nashville was the home of one of the first lunch counter
revolutions and that didn't happen until half a decade after Brown vs.
Little Rock Board of Education (or whatever it was called).


If
you can't even afford to apply financial pressure on a business to
change their policies that snub you, how much change do you think is
going to happen?

There were never anything but impoverished black people before the Civil
Rights movement?
No doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.?

Very few. The exception doesn't prove the rule. Booker T. Washington
happened at the turn of the century and yet, in 1956, blacks still
couldn't attend institutions such as Ole Miss and Alabama (to name two
of the most prominent such institutions).

Would you do business with a known racicst?

You're preaching to the choir here. Do you think that your
grandparents did business with known racists? The answer to that is
absolutely.

You don't know my grandparents.

They couldn't have avoided it (at least institutionalized
racism).

In Seattle, they could very easily.

If it weren't for government intervention, you would still be in the
same boat as your grandparents.

So you say.

For the record,

Plessy Vs. Ferguson involved a railroad that operated a mixed race coach
into the South (I forget what state.)

They were sued, and the Supremes ruled that the railroad had to comply
with state law...that is provide seperate coaches (at their expense) for
"whites" and "coloreds".

As a business, the railroad would have preferred the cheaper, one car
solution, but were forced, BY LAW to provide segregated facilities. That
the facilities were supposed to be of equal quality is the only part
that anyone remembers.

Best Regards,

DAve

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 07:50:23 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

You know, there's something oddly familiar about the style of this
post. A certain George Middius often poses loaded questions in exactly
this way.

Speaking of which, paulie, how many GB does your kiddie porn collection
fill now? ;-)

It's OK, George, I'm transferring them to CD for more convenient
storage. Even so the garden shed's almost full. :-)

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. (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.

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?

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

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.

A restaruant, a movie theatre, or any business thatis owned by a private
person or persons, is not a public place, it is orivate 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. 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?

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

Here's a letter to the opinion page of my local paper. It appeared on
Christmas Day. I believe it illustrates your position very well:

"A permanent gap"

"What will it take to acknowledge that there will always be a gap
between rich and poor? The poor and the minorities will always be
behind in the race for the good life, but they are much better off than
any of the poor and minorities in other countries."

"These people will be well taken care of because the producers will
lift them along as we go. It's that simple."

In other words, put up and shut up because it could be worse for you.
You minorities will never be producers, or be accepted as equals, or
have the good life that we do, because that's just the way it is. And I
live in the north, where we are all 'enlightened,' just like I presume
you do.

While I appreciate the honesty of your answer, the depth of the
ignorance of you, and people who think like you do, literally astounds
me.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.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?

(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?


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 effectivel abolished private property and at the every least
entered onto a slipery slope where all property is subject to theft by
government.

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.

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

Here's a letter to the opinion page of my local paper. It appeared on
Christmas Day. I believe it illustrates your position very well:

"A permanent gap"

"What will it take to acknowledge that there will always be a gap
between rich and poor? The poor and the minorities will always be
behind in the race for the good life, but they are much better off than
any of the poor and minorities in other countries."

"These people will be well taken care of because the producers will
lift them along as we go. It's that simple."

In other words, put up and shut up because it could be worse for you.
You minorities will never be producers, or be accepted as equals, or
have the good life that we do, because that's just the way it is. And I
live in the north, where we are all 'enlightened,' just like I presume
you do.

While I appreciate the honesty of your answer, the depth of the
ignorance of you, and people who think like you do, literally astounds
me.

Likewise I'm sure. You are eager it seems to rob from the rich and give to
the poor in spite of the history of how badly such plans have worked in the
past. One trillion dollars for the Great Society programs with the same
percentage of the population still in poverty and worse the destruction of
the nuclear black family.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:31:21 GMT, wrote:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
roups.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?

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

(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.

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.

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?

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

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? 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 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?

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.

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


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
groups.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.

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

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

(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.

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.

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.


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.

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
The 15th Amendment.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.


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 therre is no right to the fruits of someone else's labor if they
don't want to engage in commerce with you. That leaves a market open for
someone else to cater to.

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.

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...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
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
legroups.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?

Then there are no people in the marketplace? Actually I never said the
marketplace was what caused change, but rather those looking for markets.
Sometimes it's just people with a beleif that freedom is a value, certainly
those in the marketplace are part of that, but you know that already and it
is now you going reductio ad absurdum.

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?


Why would I do that?

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.

It would have failed in any event because it was untenable.

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?

As long as the process of legal arguements takes.
Hopefully that is always shorter rather than longer, but the reason for the
system is to right wrongs.


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.


You seem to keep forgetting that the government is people.

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.


Not because of the marketplace but in spite of it.

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

Never thought it was impossible. There are parts of both the GOP and the
Democrat platforms I agree with and parts I don't.

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.

You missed it, not my fault.

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.

Why? It's not from anything I said. You like to make stuff up.

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"?

They have power to vote fro whom they like but they are not supposed to have
the right to violate the rights of others. That's why we have a
Consititution.


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?

Work for change with the legal framework.

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...

I don't think I want to engage in more dioscussion with someone who doesn't
do so honestly.

If you want to know the Libertarian position go to their website.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:


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

Then there are no people in the marketplace? Actually I never said the
marketplace was what caused change

Actually you did. Or *should* cause change. Or is the only thing that
*should* casue change.

Deny that at your own peril.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:

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

As long as the process of legal arguements takes.
Hopefully that is always shorter rather than longer, but the reason for the
system is to right wrongs.

Is "the system" the "marketplace"?

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:

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.


You seem to keep forgetting that the government is people.

No I don't. It's YOU who keeps forgetting that important tenet. You
seem to claim that "the people" (being interchangeable with "the
government" is powerless to act, because it's "the marketplace" that
will correct all wrongs, even though history hasn't shown that to be
the case).

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:


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"?

They have power to vote fro whom they like but they are not supposed to have
the right to violate the rights of others. That's why we have a
Consititution.

Didn't work for almost two centuries, even though it was amended a
century into "the grand experiment".

Where was the marketplace during that time?

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:

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

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

Work for change with the legal framework.

Hmmm, back to government...

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:

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...

I don't think I want to engage in more dioscussion with someone who doesn't
do so honestly.

It's YOU who's being dishonest. You couldn't come up with an answer to
any of my points so you just avoid them. THAT'S not the libertarian
way.

PS, done any research on the civil rights movement yet? Find any
non-white faces in there?

From: dave weil
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:13:23 -0600

They have power to vote fro whom they like but they are not supposed to have
the right to violate the rights of others. That's why we have a
Consititution.

Unless you're violating their rights on your private property, which is
(of course) OK.

Didn't work for almost two centuries, even though it was amended a
century into "the grand experiment".

Where was the marketplace during that time?

Um, buying and selling slaves for a lot of it, who were "private
property" at that time.

It's a good thing that a bloody Civil War, no doubt initiated by the
marketplace, helped put an end to the practice.

Man, this nyob is about as sharp as a rotting log, isn't he?

Shhhh! said:

Man, this nyob is about as sharp as a rotting log, isn't he?

Nice image. BTW, Mickey's doofusness shouldn't surprise anybody because
he readily admits he holds Arnii Kroofeces in high esteem.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: dave weil
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:13:23 -0600

They have power to vote fro whom they like but they are not supposed to
have
the right to violate the rights of others. That's why we have a
Consititution.

Unless you're violating their rights on your private property, which is
(of course) OK.

It is? Did I miss a meeting? In the real world people's right aren't
subject to the whim of other people. If you grant someone permission to
trespass they still have the same rights as before.

Didn't work for almost two centuries, even though it was amended a
century into "the grand experiment".

Where was the marketplace during that time?

Um, buying and selling slaves for a lot of it, who were "private
property" at that time.

It was a policy that was in place in most countries of the world at one time
or another, so there's shame enough to go around. That we took so long and
fought a war that was inpart because of slavery is not to our credit, but we
have since made slavery illegal.

It's a good thing that a bloody Civil War, no doubt initiated by the
marketplace, helped put an end to the practice.

At least partly true.

Man, this nyob is about as sharp as a rotting log, isn't he?

Eye of the beholder. How sharp is a person who thinks that it's OK to steal
property to run a government?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:


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

Then there are no people in the marketplace? Actually I never said the
marketplace was what caused change

Actually you did. Or *should* cause change. Or is the only thing that
*should* casue change.

Deny that at your own peril.

Supply the quote. I recall saying that capitalism was moving towards
breaking down barriers and thereby causing change, Inever said it was the
only vehicle or that it should be.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:

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

As long as the process of legal arguements takes.
Hopefully that is always shorter rather than longer, but the reason for
the
system is to right wrongs.

Is "the system" the "marketplace"?

Are you stupid or just trying to appear so?

The system is the system of laws that we use to govern ourselves with.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:

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.


You seem to keep forgetting that the government is people.

No I don't. It's YOU who keeps forgetting that important tenet.

I haven't forgotten it, but some in the government sonmetimes seem to have
done so.

You
seem to claim that "the people" (being interchangeable with "the
government" is powerless to act, because it's "the marketplace" that
will correct all wrongs, even though history hasn't shown that to be
the case).

If that's what you believe I said then you are either an idiot or a liar.

I said that the marketplace can be a source for change and it was partly
responsible for helping move things along in the case of segregation, by
trying to get rid of one of the segregationist laws concerning trains. At
no time did I ever state or imply that capitalism was the only right and
proper way to accomplish change.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:


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"?

They have power to vote fro whom they like but they are not supposed to
have
the right to violate the rights of others. That's why we have a
Consititution.

Didn't work for almost two centuries, even though it was amended a
century into "the grand experiment".

Where was the marketplace during that time?

Staying out of the south where it was not exactly welcome. Capitalism tends
to reward rationalism and there was not a lot of that in the south at the
time of slavery and for a long period after.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:02:12 GMT, wrote:

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

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

Work for change with the legal framework.

Hmmm, back to government...

Which is the people in a FREE SOCIETY.