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.
Aren't adults in a free society presumed to have the common-sense to figure it out for themselves?
We all know private property rights are not absolute. There are considerations of emiment domain and such, for example. But your example IS a non-sequiteur, because no one is yelling "fire" in a public place. In fact, the yelling of "fire" would be, as to the issue at hand, posted clearly beforehand.
That is to say, for example, there is a sign on the door "We Serve Black People Only" or "No Asians need apply". Then the "fire" thing -- metaphorically speaking -- is clearly announced aforehand. Don't go into the place and you will not have to get burned nor trampled to death.
I just don't understand why you (or anybody else) would use the hand of government to force someone to do business with you when they don't want to, or you didn't want them to.
It's because of common good.
I think a lot of conservative thinkers on this topic are living in a bit of a dreamworld here. In general, the belief is that if a business discriminates against a certain group of people, that another business that doesn't will win because it will be able to serve more customers. It's based on a genuine belief that most people believe discrimination is bad and if anybody decides to do so, people of all races will unite together to defeat them without any effect on our cultural attitudes.
But what if that assumption isn't true?
The bottom line is that white culture, black culture, Hispanic culture, Asian culture, Native American culture, etc. are all huge. If business owners in each culture are allowed to discriminate, those attitudes are going to allowed to permeate. Ideally, we'd like to assume that the vast majority of people would shut them down, but there are varying degrees of cynicism about people of other races and ethnicities amongst all groups. Soon, you'll get well-meaning people saying "well, I don't really agree with not allowing [insert race group] here, but they've got good stuff and I can't get it anywhere else." The seeds of distrust are sown, and continue to grow. Segregation begins to flourish. They'll be tremendous pressure for people not to frequent businesses outside of their racial/ethnic group, even if they don't theoretically agree. I doubt whether it would lead to a repeat of Jim Crow laws, but it would still be ugly in a different way.
So I think the government has to have a role in making this illegal, so the conditions that promote wholesale segregation by race and ethnicity aren't allowed to grow. That way, we can't just accept the status quo of people who would choose to discriminate.
Some of you Paul defenders don't like examples, probably b/c they make you uncomfortable. However, I'm going to give one anyway. What if a pharmacy in town had a "no blacks" policy, yet this store was the only pharmacy in town (a reality in many small towns) and carried the medication you needed to save your life? It wouldn't even have to be anything real exotic; it could be insulin. What's your answer to that? Die? Drive 20-30 miles out of your way to a pharmacy that will serve you? Why souldn't the pharmacist have to fill your prescription?
With all due respect? Things done in the name of the "common good" have been the root --at best -- for restricting classical notions of freedom (i.e. property and association rights). At worst? Filling up gulags and graveyards (as David Horowitz put it).
No one individual, nor collection of them, is/are so wise as to determine some abstract ideal of what is the "common good". Only naive undergrads and ivory-towered college professors could possibly presume to do so, as they don't live in the real world.
But let's go here...
Quote:
I think a lot of conservative thinkers on this topic are living in a bit of a dreamworld here. In general, the belief is that if a business discriminates against a certain group of people, that another business that doesn't will win because it will be able to serve more customers.
Dreamworld? Do you, or have you ever, owned/operated a business? If so, then come back and tell of your personal experience as to why those of others are in a dreamworld.
Quote:
It's based on a genuine belief that most people believe discrimination is bad and if anybody decides to do so, people of all races will unite together to defeat them without any effect on our cultural attitudes.
Contrary to what those of your ilk want to believe, it is not 1935 anymore. Overt racism has long since gone out. Any business which posted signs such as mentioned would be out of business within a month. Your thesis depends upon that most Americans are still stuck in that era. It is up to you to prove different.
Quote:
But what if that assumption isn't true?
But what if it is? Your whole thesis falls apart unless -- like many on the far left do -- you honestly believe that most people are latent racists.
Quote:
The bottom line is that white culture, black culture, Hispanic culture, Asian culture, Native American culture, etc. are all huge. If business owners in each culture are allowed to discriminate, those attitudes are going to allowed to permeate. Ideally, we'd like to assume that the vast majority of people would shut them down, but there are varying degrees of cynicism about people of other races and ethnicities amongst all groups. Soon, you'll get well-meaning people saying "well, I don't really agree with not allowing [insert race group] here, but they've got good stuff and I can't get it anywhere else." The seeds of distrust are sown, and continue to grow. Segregation begins to flourish. They'll be tremendous pressure for people not to frequent businesses outside of their racial/ethnic group, even if they don't theoretically agree. I doubt whether it would lead to a repeat of Jim Crow laws, but it would still be ugly in a different way.
Ok, I got the lecture. Last time I heard it was back in college. Whatever, this is all predicated upon that voluntary segregation is a "bad" thing". So backtrack and explain why the right to do so is not a basic freedom? What people might or might not do has nothing to do with the basic concept.
Quote:
So I think the government has to have a role in making this illegal, so the conditions that promote wholesale segregation by race and ethnicity aren't allowed to grow. That way, we can't just accept the status quo of people who would choose to discriminate.
What is the "government?" Which branch?. What people? You? Fact is, government is not a benelvolent force. It is the sum total of people employed on the public dole acting in their own interests. It is in the interest of the said people to find discrimination in some form or fashion as it saves their own jobs.
So here is my bottom line: If one owns the business, puts up the money, takes the risks, stands to sink or swim? Black, white, asian, hispanic, native-american, they should -- in a free country -- do as they will in terms of hiring, firing, serving, or getting their butts kicked if they made the wrong decision. Simple as that.
Contrary to what those of your ilk want to believe, it is not 1935 anymore. Overt racism has long since gone out. Any business which posted signs such as mentioned would be out of business within a month. Your thesis depends upon that most Americans are still stuck in that era. It is up to you to prove different.
Okay, I know it's been six months, but I saw this reply while looking for another old post of mine. Of course it's not 1935 anymore, and I agree that today, any business (well, at least a white-owned business - I'm not sure what would happen with some minority-owned businesses) with such a sign would be out of business in a month. But my guess is that if it became acceptable amongst minorities to do so, the backlash against it might cause it to become acceptable for whites to do so. Both are wrong IMO.
But the real issue is that it doesn't have to be as blatant as a sign. It could simply be customer service. Soon the affected parties will get the hint to leave, while the preferred group goes on not noticing.
Quote:
But what if it is? Your whole thesis falls apart unless -- like many on the far left do -- you honestly believe that most people are latent racists.
I don't believe most people are latent racists. I believe most people accept the status quo. If you look at the South before civil rights, for example, it's not that all white people were terrible racists intentionally trying to keep black people down. It's just that there were enough of those types, and everybody else just accepted things to be that way. I think it's hard to blame them as it is. If "racist" thinking gained enough stronghold, you would see well-meaning not racist people inadvertently participating in it.
Quote:
Ok, I got the lecture. Last time I heard it was back in college. Whatever, this is all predicated upon that voluntary segregation is a "bad" thing". So backtrack and explain why the right to do so is not a basic freedom? What people might or might not do has nothing to do with the basic concept.
Because voluntary segregation promotes a lack of exchange of ideas, factions, distrust, suspicion, and extremist views. That's not saying that there aren't "good" things about voluntary segregation in some respects (it helps to have a like-minded community in many ways,) but there needs to be boundaries. This is not just about race, either, and can be about things such as geography, careers, or whatever you can think of.
Quote:
So here is my bottom line: If one owns the business, puts up the money, takes the risks, stands to sink or swim? Black, white, asian, hispanic, native-american, they should -- in a free country -- do as they will in terms of hiring, firing, serving, or getting their butts kicked if they made the wrong decision. Simple as that.
There's already some leeway in these decisions, but there really isn't a reason to allow discrimination other than because people might want to do it.
It shouldn't be allowed because we're America and we're better than that.
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.
