Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know I may give money to racists, but they still have to service me. In some areas, mom and pop shops maybe the only options for blacks.
So you would rather have racists do sh*t to your food and give you poor service as opposed to going to the next store? If all mom and pop shops go white only I would bet people would poor tons of money into the competition.
Your fear is unfounded, this issue is not high on the list of priorities for libertarians, it is a intellectual thought experiment for the most part, it is only an issue because of the power elite bring it up to marginalize freedom.
After we end the war on drugs, reign in corporate power, stop private banks from creating money, bring all our troops home form overseas and slash the military budget, then we can start talking about the few people who may want to be outwardly racist. By then we would have such a radically different country with a lower cost of living, more peace and abundance, less "us vs them" mentality, we would easily be able to compete with the racist and drive them out of business.
Racism is not an issue for white people, but it is for blacks. You can't tell me it won't be a big issue.
I don't see how a few small stores being white only would be worse than the systematic incarceration of a generation of minorities and the killing of tens of thousands through an illegal drug war.
So you would rather have racists do sh*t to your food and give you poor service as opposed to going to the next store? If all mom and pop shops go white only I would bet people would poor tons of money into the competition.
Your fear is unfounded, this issue is not high on the list of priorities for libertarians, it is a intellectual thought experiment for the most part, it is only an issue because of the power elite bring it up to marginalize freedom.
How is it unfounded? Do i need to remind you what happened before 1964?
After we end the war on drugs, reign in corporate power, stop private banks from creating money, bring all our troops home form overseas and slash the military budget, then we can start talking about the few people who may want to be outwardly racist. By then we would have such a radically different country with a lower cost of living, more peace and abundance, less "us vs them" mentality, we would easily be able to compete with the racist and drive them out of business.
There are not just a few racists. Racism is on a higher priority list for me than it is for you. I'm black you are white.
People in the US did not wake up one day in 1965 and have some collective epiphany that discrimination was wrong. It took the force of law.
Lets look at this statement carefully. How does a law get passed anyway? Does one man on a committee pass a federal law? Or does it take a majority? If we look at the Civil Rights act of 1964, it was passed in the senate 71 to 29. Not only was there a majority, but there was a supermajority. That senate could have even passed it as an amendment to the constitution. And in those days, there weren't that many minorities voting, so it was white people who overwhelmingly supported such a law.
So we can safely say that discrimination was something only supported or practiced by a minority of Americans. Otherwise there never would have been "the force of law" to begin with.
On the other hand, if you could have gone back to the early 1900's and tried to pass the same Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress. I can promise that it never would have made it out of committee. Why? Because in the early 1900's racism was rampant, the KKK was idolized. But over time, segregation and racism was dying, without any "laws" to eliminate it. For example, things were mpt worse for blacks in the 1960's than they were for blacks in previous decades. From the 1920's to the 1960's, blacks saw a huge leap in standard of living. They were moving into cities, Jazz music and the speakeasy's in the 20's brought black music and culture into the mainstream. Then you had World War II, which did two things. First, it brought black workers into the cities in great numbers to fill labor roles for supporting the war effort. And blacks were utilized in the military in large numbers, and performed well(Tuskegee Airmen anyone?). The aftermath of WWII and the second great migration is what produced the Civil Rights era.
I have nothing against peaceful demonstrations in the Civil Rights era, to bring to the public conscious that certain activities towards blacks was either morally repugnant or criminal. But instead of convincing people of the righteousness of desegregation. You instead had people who attempted to use government force on others, to produce their desired results. If you compare the situation of blacks between 1920 and 1960 to blacks between 1960 and 2000, blacks had become much better off in the preceding 40 years without government intervention than in the later 40 years with government intervention.
I do not believe that forced busing had any demonstrable benefit to anyone at all. The amount of violence that resulted was downright criminal. And not only did the real racists just pull their children from school and move them elsewhere, but many of the non-racists fled the violence of the era into suburbs. Forced busing largely destroyed many of our major cities. Most of the areas where forced busing was originally implemented have become all-black areas today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
I would agree with you. I am white and tilt libertarian, but the notion of any sanctioned segregation is repulsive.
Most whites do find sanctioned segregation to be repulsive(as I have already mentioned). But a lot of people find a lot of other things repulsive as well. For instance, I find abortion to be repulsive. I find government bailouts to be repulsive. I find our wars as repulsive. I find the TSA to be repulsive. I find atheists to be repulsive. I find people who cheat on their spouses to be repulsive. I find bad parents to be repulsive. People living on welfare but having nonstop children are repulsive to me. And this goes on and on and on and on.
Should everything that I believe is repulsive, be against the law? Should anything that 51% of the population believes is repulsive, be against the law? Isn't "democracy" the way those discriminatory laws were put in place to begin with? What we have effectively done, is use democracy to overthrow democracy. But if we had been "free" to begin with, none of this would have happened.
Quote:
Libertarianism allows people to do what they want so long as they do not hurt one another. Segregation is demeaning to everyone, especially those in the minority. Its sanctioned or tolerated exclusion. That certainly hurts everyone involved.
As for "sanctioned or tolerated exclusion". There is already plenty of it that goes on in the world. There are plenty of apartments for instance that only allow the elderly to live there. There are businesses who only cater to children or to women. Who gives a ****? There might as well be a sign in many parts of my city that says "no whites allowed", because whites certainly don't feel welcomed there, and they are liable to get shot on attacked if they go there(black bars/clubs). There are large swaths of my city in which I wouldn't live in if someone paid me, there might as well be no whites allowed painted all over the place, cause that's what it is. At least if there was a sign, it would be easier for me to tell where I'm not wanted, and I would just continue to take my money down the road.
In my opinion, this all boils down to people having a chip on their shoulder. If you take the case of public schools, most blacks were not looking forward to sending their kids into white schools during forced busing. The issue of segregation in regards to blacks, was more an issue of pride rather than desire. The "whites only" sign was just a representation of this belief that blacks were inferior or undesirable. And overturning it was to prove to blacks that they were equal, desirable, good, etc.
I mean, if there was a vegetarian restaurant with a "whites only" sign in the window. I'm not convinced any blacks would actually want to eat at that restaurant, but how dare they say blacks can't enter. Something must be done!!
To me, that is the reality of the situation. Of course, I don't have low self-esteem, so if I saw a "blacks only" sign, I simply wouldn't care. Of course, I am sure there would be some white people who would go crazy.
In Japan there are businesses that say "Japanese only". Should I be angry?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-01-2011 at 12:24 PM..
Lets look at this statement carefully. How does a law get passed anyway? Does one man on a committee pass a federal law? Or does it take a majority? If we look at the Civil Rights act of 1964, it was passed in the senate 71 to 29. Not only was there a majority, but there was a supermajority. That senate could have even passed it as an amendment to the constitution. And in those days, there weren't that many minorities voting, so it was white people who overwhelmingly supported such a law.
So we can safely say that discrimination was something only supported or practiced by a minority of Americans. Otherwise there never would have been "the force of law" to begin with.
On the other hand, if you could have gone back to the early 1900's and tried to pass the same Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress. I can promise that it never would have made it out of committee. Why? Because segregation and racism was dying without any intervention. Things were not getting worse for blacks in the 1960's than they were for blacks in previous decades. From the 1920's to the 1960's, blacks saw a huge leap in standard of living. They were moving into cities, Jazz music and the speakeasy's in the 20's brought black music and culture into the mainstream. Then you had World War II, which did two things. First, it brought black workers into the cities in great numbers to fill labor roles for supporting the war effort. And blacks were utilized in the war in large numbers, and performed well. The aftermath of WWII and the second great migration is what produced the Civil Rights era.
I have nothing against peaceful demonstrations in the Civil Rights era, to bring to the public conscious that certain activities towards blacks was either morally repugnant or criminal. But instead of convincing people of the righteousness of desegregation. You instead had people who attempted to use government force on others, to produce their desired results. If you compare the situation of blacks between 1920 and 1960 to blacks between 1960 and 2000, blacks had become much better off in the preceding 40 years than in the later 40 years with government intervention.
I do not believe that forced busing had any demonstrable benefit to anyone at all. The amount of violence that resulted was downright criminal. And not only did the real racists just pull their children from school and move them elsewhere, but many of the non-racists fled the violence of the era into suburbs. Forced busing largely destroyed many of our major cities. Most of the areas where forced busing was originally implemented have become all-black areas.
Most whites do find sanctioned segregation to be repulsive(as I have already mentioned). But a lot of people find a lot of other things repulsive as well. For instance, I find abortion to be repulsive. I find government bailouts to be repulsive. I find our wars as repulsive. I find the TSA to be repulsive. I find atheists to be repulsive. I find people who cheat on their spouses to be repulsive. I find bad parents to be repulsive. People living on welfare but having nonstop children are repulsive to me. And this goes on and on and on and on.
Should everything that I believe is repulsive, be against the law? Should anything that 51% of the population believes is repulsive, be against the law? Isn't "democracy" the way those discriminatory laws were put in place to begin with? What we have effectively done, is use democracy to overthrow democracy.
As for "sanctioned or tolerated exclusion". There is already plenty of it that goes on in the world. There are plenty of apartments for instance that only allow the elderly to live there. There are businesses who only cater to children or to women. Who gives a ****? There might as well be a sign in many parts of my city that says "no whites allowed", because whites certainly don't feel welcomed there, and they are liable to get shot on attacked if they go there. There are large swaths of my city in which I wouldn't live in if someone paid me, there might as well be no whites allowed painted all over the place, cause thats what it is. At least if there was a sign, it would be easier for me to tell where I'm not wanted, and I would just continue to take my money down the road.
In my opinion, this all boils down to people having this chip on their shoulder. If you take the case of public schools, most blacks were not looking forward to sending their kids into white schools during forced busing. The issue of segregation in regards to blacks, was more an issue of pride rather than desire. The "whites only" sign was just a representation of this belief that blacks were inferior or undesirable. And overturning it was to prove to blacks that they were equal, desirable, good, etc.
I mean, if there was a vegetarian restaurant with a "whites only" sign in the window. I'm not convinced any blacks would actually want to eat at that restaurant, but how dare they say blacks can't enter. Something must be done!!
To me, that is the reality of the situation. Of course, I don't have low self-esteem, so if I saw a "blacks only" sign, I simply wouldn't care. Of course, I am sure there would be some white people who would go crazy.
In Japan there are businesses that say "Japanese only". Should I be angry?
Very easy for white people to dismiss the idea of racism. Of course you wouldn't care if there was "black only sign" because you have more options. You weren't discriminated back in the 60's so i guess you wouldn't have low self esteem.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,471,994 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi
Your fear is unfounded, this issue is not high on the list of priorities for libertarians, it is a intellectual thought experiment for the most part, it is only an issue because of the power elite bring it up to marginalize freedom.
Yeah, isn't it remarkable how cavalier some folks are (usually white) re: the "realities" of race relations that still persist in this country. Especially when all you gotta do is look at the intense hatred simply generated by having a black President!!
Very easy for white people to dismiss the idea of racism. Of course you wouldn't care if there was "black only sign" because you have more options. You weren't discriminated back in the 60's so i guess you wouldn't have low self esteem.
Blacks still tend to have low self-esteem. Their lot in life still hasn't gotten that much better since all this legislation was passed to "help them". You should go listen to some Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson or someone. They will tell you how victimized you still are. How about some black panthers, who believe that whites should be exterminated from the face of the Earth.
I understand why blacks have low self-esteem. I'm just saying, you need to grow up. There are almost 40 million blacks in this country. The population of black America is equal to the total population of seven southern states, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. There is no reason to believe that blacks are this defenseless victim. If anyone should be worried about racism, it would be Native-Americans. There are only 1.6 million Native-Americans in this country. Which gives them less than half the population of even the least populated southern state.
But I'm part Cherokee Indian(though I do look very "white", though I have a pretty good tan right now). I live in Oklahoma. Which despite it being the home of so many Native-Americans, is probably one of the most racist states in the country. But Native-Americans and white people really aren't racist towards each other, they get along just fine here. Many Native-Americans will actually fly the Confederate battle flag. Because during the Civil War, the confederacy promised to basically leave Oklahoma to the Indians. While the old Union was preparing to open Oklahoma to white settlement(and eventually did). Most Native-Americans absolutely despise Andrew Jackson, and that includes a large number of white Oklahomans as well.
Even if the Civil Rights act and other legislation was repealed. I'm really not worried at all. And neither are the other Native-Americans that I meet, nor are the Asians concerned either. Neither are the hispanics for that matter. The only ones that really seem to care, are the blacks, which basically have the least to worry about anyway, since they are so numerous.
There are not just a few racists. Racism is on a higher priority list for me than it is for you. I'm black you are white.
It is a very high priority for me, that is why most of my activism fights the drug war, gay marriage issue and other things that relate to rights. Most white people act all high and mighty regarding the property rights/racism issue yet cheer when blacks are sent to jail for drug crimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55
Very easy for white people to dismiss the idea of racism. Of course you wouldn't care if there was "black only sign" because you have more options. You weren't discriminated back in the 60's so i guess you wouldn't have low self esteem.
Not true in my case, most music I like is stereotyped as "black music", it would be possible for me to be excluded from enjoying it live.
Yeah, isn't it remarkable how cavalier some folks are (& they're usually white) re: the "realities" of race relations that still persist in this country. Especially when all you gotta do is look at the intense hatred generated simply by having a black President!!
Do you have proof of this "intense hatred" due to race? I guess people are not accustomed to having a liberal president anymore so they figure it's race instead of policies. Most Democrats under age 40 have lived under Republican presidents for 26 of those years and aren't accustomed to criticism of "their guy".
I suggest you look at the first two years of Bill Clinton's term before he became a semi-Republican after 1994 (especially during the HillaryCare debate that mirrors the Obamacare battle), and Clinton's initial govt shutdown battle with the Republicans over spending.
Or, look at the criticism of Jimmy Carter's entire term from 1976-1980, which mirrors the hard criticism Obama is receiving about unemployment.
You can even go as far back as the criticism over government spending in LBJ's Great Society programs.
Many of the same liberal policies were opposed vehemently by the other side and the same arguments were being made that are made against the Obama Administration's policies.
How is it racism if the same opposing arguments are being made?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
