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.
Why would anyone vote thinking "What's in it for me?".
Isn't the question, "What's best for the Country?".
That is just how I think. I've learned that even my neighbors aren't going to look out for me. One can't even trust their neighbors. If it means it is going to hinder me, I won't support it. Until there is a solution that helps EVERYONE, then people are going to continue to vote based on what is in it for them.
Progress is using force to coerce society?
If you want to prevent racism you need to actually do something instead of relying on government to protect you. It is not the role of government to raise people from cradle to grave. It has enumerated duties.
Protest the establishment, go into business for yourself and open up shop next door.
Do you actually think more than a handful of businesses would try to use exclusionary policies and still exist? (I wouldn't call Augusta National Golf Club normal business.)
btw it was government that made those Jim Crow laws you mentioned. Why rely on them? They don't have a very good track record now do they?
The feds allowed the states in the South to use such Jim Crow laws. If the federal government can put a stop to it, while local governments are kicking and screaming to resist it, then I look at it this way: I can't really trust the feds that much, but I tend to trust some of the local governments even less.
It's not about supporting a guy who says "Sure, go ahead and put up a no blacks sign". It's about supporting the owner of the business who wants to run the business according to their views. IF the market rejects it (which, IMO, a place like that would..), it will fail miserably.
1. The idea that a business has "rights" is still in debate. It closely relates to corporate personhood. Humans have a right to discriminate, being sovereign individuals. Business are legal constructs. What rights, outside of those given by a governing body, do they have?
2. "The Market" is a euphemism for human greed. Discrimination was atrocious in the sixties and before the bill was signed. The law specifically stated that business which serve "to the public" could not discriminate. It's not just about a business that say, creates chairs, but business that accommodate the public--restaurants, hospitality, etc. There is a stark difference between the two.
Quote:
The other thing you need to realize, it's NOT just "No blacks allowed!" A black person, or ANYONE, can start a business and rightfully says "NO WHITES". Once again, the market will decide if it's a great business move or not.
I personally will not support any stores that would do that, but I respect them wanting to run their own business the way they want to.
This isn't 1935 either. Our cultural viewpoints have shifted rapidly since even this law was enacted. Rapidly, greatly, but not completely. You can't view this law from a revisionist viewpoint.
The feds allowed the states in the South to use such Jim Crow laws. If the federal government can put a stop to it, while local governments are kicking and screaming to resist it, then I look at it this way: I can't really trust the feds that much, but I tend to trust some of the local governments even less.
You have more control on the local level. It is easier to make changes. If it gets bad you move to another state at least. When the feds overstep everyone is stuck and it is very hard to overturn a ruling. One size doesn't fit all sometimes. Another reason for local control.
A couple of problems.
1. The idea that a business has "rights" is still in debate. It closely relates to corporate personhood. Humans have a right to discriminate, being sovereign individuals. Business are legal constructs. What rights, outside of those given by a governing body, do they have?
2. "The Market" is a euphemism for human greed. Discrimination was atrocious in the sixties and before the bill was signed. The law specifically stated that business which serve "to the public" could not discriminate. It's not just about a business that say, creates chairs, but business that accommodate the public--restaurants, hospitality, etc. There is a stark difference between the two.
This isn't 1935 either. Our cultural viewpoints have shifted rapidly since even this law was enacted. Rapidly, greatly, but not completely. You can't view this law from a revisionist viewpoint.
As far as the public sector is concerned you wont get an argument from me. Shameful that our government shirked it's duties and allowed that to happen. Another in the long list.
It's not about a business having rights. It's about the individual having rights. If I am a plumber who owns the business, be it just me or I have 100 people working for me, and don't want to work for a certain segment of society that's my choice. I don't loose my rights because I join a company.
Government does not owns it's citizens and should not be able to use force to make them do work for others. My work is my property. No one has a right to anothers property. Even if there are good intentions, rights should never be trampled on.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
You have more control on the local level. It is easier to make changes. If it gets bad you move to another state at least. When the feds overstep everyone is stuck and it is very hard to overturn a ruling. One size doesn't fit all sometimes. Another reason for local control.
At the point that I'm at, I can't just move to another state. It takes alot of money to relocate to another state. The way I look at things, is also from a historical perspective. The way you are looking at it, it is assuming that all people are inherently good and will do the right thing. I tend to think otherwise.
I agree with Ron Paul, and I bet we have the same reasoning. Let people bankrupt themselves. A business that did that would be done for in days and would likely win a Darwin Award.
History does not support your contention. Businesses that did not serve blacks did just fine prior to the Civil Rights Act, and in some cases even after that, including in the north.
At the point that I'm at, I can't just move to another state. It takes alot of money to relocate to another state.
Don't know who told it's expensive to move. Cheap enough to rent a truck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
The way I look at things, is also from a historical perspective. The way you are looking at it, it is assuming that all people are inherently good and will do the right thing. I tend to think otherwise.
I don't understand by "historical point of view". We have seen though out history the horrible racist laws government has put into place. Why rely on something that has been wrong a lot more than being right? I don't put my eggs in the losers basket.
Government never has been moral. Their continued actions prove it. Good intentions, sure some politicians do have them. Was the housing bill that destroyed our economy good intentions? The very ones it was intended to help are far worse off than any other segment of society now so I'll pass on "government helping the people" theory. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Are there places around you that you think would revert back to exclusionary polices? Since we are in the information age, how long do you think that business would last? The free market tells us if you eliminate a segment of your customers you will loose out to a similar business that doesn't.
Government should never take on the role of society.
Look at the advances minorities were gaining in the job market in the years before the Civil Rights Act. The CRA exposed the grandstanders. If these so called leaders had pull maybe we can dig up speeches they made or protests they attended. Where were they before this?
Unless you are wall street or own a bank, don't count on bought and paid for politicians to solve your problems in the long run.
Don't know who told it's expensive to move. Cheap enough to rent a truck.
Something tells me you've never done it. There is a lot more to moving than "renting a truck".
<snip>
Quote:
Look at the advances minorities were gaining in the job market in the years before the Civil Rights Act. The CRA exposed the grandstanders. If these so called leaders had pull maybe we can dig up speeches they made or protests they attended. Where were they before this?
Unless you are wall street or own a bank, don't count on bought and paid for politicians to solve your problems in the long run.
Suppose you tell us about all these advances, with verifiable information.
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.
