It's not that at all. I agree people have the right to be idiots. Racists are idiots. It is not your place or mine to force change upon them.Why are libertarians so sympathetic to the racist swine who practiced segregation and discrimination for decades before the Civil Rights Act?
There are plenty of places today that will accept people of all color. Why do you want people to use the force of law to go in where they aren't wanted? Today, racist places will not be common, or prosper.Correct ... Everyone has the right to be a douche ... but they do not have the the right to PRACTICE their douche-baggery when it interferes with the Civil Rights of others Americans
It's not that at all. I agree people have the right to be idiots. Racists are idiots. It is not your place or mine to force change upon them.
The same could be said of the racist who owns a business. He has the right to believe anything he wants to about race relations but he does not have the right to racially discriminate against his black patrons who have the right not to be discriminated against.
If you believe he does then you are a de facto racist yourself.
Bullsquat! Racist businesses did and would still prosper. The "good ole' boy" network as was seen in the Jim Crow days of the south always made sure that the racists were protected and made up for the lack of black patronage.There are plenty of places today that will accept people of all color. Why do you want people to use the force of law to go in where they aren't wanted? Today, racist places will not be common, or prosper.
De facto? Nope. In fact, I am not. I'm only that in your ignorant namecalling.
.
You are either a part of the problem or you are part of the solution to racism. Call it what you will, you are taking the position of an enabler.
The true libertarian position would be to be against the laws that pervaded throughout the south that negated the civil rights of people of color.
They win the election, have the overwhelming support, make a better argument.
Again, you're exaggerating. That's not what's said. What's said is, don't discriminate or you'll be fined. Say within the reality of it.
How I feel about someone does not give me the right to take away their freedom of association with the force of law behind me.Buck Ewer said:I don't buy it at all. If you wish to allow people to practice racial discrimination, you sympathize with these scum to at least some degree.
At this point, he does harm to another.Buck Ewer said:A right to believe and a right to practice are two entirely different things.
Analogy: We can not control the private fantasies of a pedophile ... he has the right to harbor his lust for children within his own head. The moment he treads on the rights of a child to be left unmolested he has broken the law and social and moral decency.
First off, we all discriminate all the time. Racial discrimination is a discrimination that is not well accepted by most people these days. If such laws were removed from the books, I'm sure you would find very, very few businesses that would effectively have " no black patrons" or "blacks need not apply." In today's world, any business thought to be racist wouldn't be in business long. Maybe a small few would, but really... With so many other places, why does it matter, besides not accepting other people's views?Buck Ewer said:The same could be said of the racist who owns a business. He has the right to believe anything he wants to about race relations but he does not have the right to racially discriminate against his black patrons who have the right not to be discriminated against.
If you believe he does then you are a de facto racist yourself.
Lead by example then, rather than force of race baiting.Buck Ewer said:It is absolutely the place for you and I, and all of society to keep the racist from practicing racism just as it is OUR responsibility to stop the pedophile from practicing pedophilia.
Well, you can still find racists everywhere. I find most are liberal authoritarians who love to keep blacks underprivileged, so they have a political cause for power.Buck Ewer said:In my honest opinion libertarian-ism is a thinly veiled disguise for racists to wear when confronted with the potential to repeal anti racist law, and i have no stomach for it.
It's people like you who most right leaning people people hate. We have little tolerance for those who punish the many over the sins of a few.Bullsquat! Racist businesses did and would still prosper. The "good ole' boy" network as was seen in the Jim Crow days of the south always made sure that the racists were protected and made up for the lack of black patronage.
In my honest opinion libertarianism is a thinly veiled disguise for racists to wear when presented with the prospect of repealing the laws that prevent the practice of racial discrimination. Like it or not when you condone the return to the legal practice of public racism, it make you look like a racist.
There is no "liberty" in the free practice of racial discrimination.
Yes, and you are part of the problem, by requiring the force of law to support your views.You are either a part of the problem or you are part of the solution to racism. Call it what you will, you are taking the position of an enabler.
How about if I was hiring for the job that you do and I advertised a very high pay for that job .
When you came down to interview for the position a sign on the door said " LIBERTARIANS NEED NOT APPLY"...
You'd be okay with that and just go on your way ??
I thought this discussion was about just part of the act. Not the whole of it...No, anyone who claims to be against the Civil Rights Act because of a "libertarian" ideology doesn't convince me at all. It makes no sense.
Yeah, I guess I am an enabler of free speech as well.
And freedom of religion.
And virtually every other freedom we have. I'm such an enabler.
What a coincidence, we are all against Jim Crow laws, just like everyone else.
Why am I against Jim Crow laws? Because they dictate who a business owner can't provide custom to
Why am I against one aspect of CRA 1964? Because it dictates who a business owner must give custom to.
Both are equally bad.
Yes, and you are part of the problem, by requiring the force of law to support your views.
Why are liberals so authoritarian, forcing people to do things they don't want to?
The fact that a large number of people want to do something has no bearing on whether that act is ethical. The libertarian position is that it is wrong to initiate aggression. It doesn't matter whether a lot of people wish to do so or a single individual wishes to do so. In either case the initiation of aggression is wrong. A group of people has not special authority that does not belong to any individual.
I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users I thought I would try it again.
In May 2010 Rand Paul announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate from Kentucky on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. On the show he got into some trouble because he said he wouldn't support the "public accommodations" portion of the Civil Right Act of 1964.
That led up to this confrontation with Megyn Kelly on Fox where he said he favors repeal of that part of the law.
Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?
Yes
No
I don't Know
Here is part of the transcript:
KELLY: Rand Paul is a libertarian. You are a libertarian. He is getting excoriated for suggesting that the Civil Rights act -- what he said was, "Look it's got 10 parts, essentially; I favor nine. It's the last part that mandated no discrimination in places of public accommodation that I have a problem with, because you should let businesses decide for themselves whether they are going to be racist or not racist. Because once the government gets involved, it's a slippery slope." Do you agree with that?
STOSSEL: Totally. I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, "We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys," it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.
KELLY: OK. When you put it like that it sounds fine, right? So who cares if a blond anchorwoman and mustached anchorman can't go into the lunchroom. But as you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around because it was needed. Blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter with whites. They couldn't, as they traveled from state to state in this country, they couldn't go in and use a restroom. They couldn't get severed meals and so on, and therefore, unfortunately in this country a law was necessary to get them equal rights.
STOSSEL: Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.
KELLY: How do you know? How do you know that these private business owners, who owned restaurants and so on, would have said, "You know what? Yes. We will take blacks.
STOSSEL: Some wouldn't.
KELLY: We'll take gays. We'll take lesbians," if they hadn't been forced to do it.
STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.
KELLY: How do you know that, John?
STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.
KELLY: That then was a different time. Racism and discrimination was rampant. I'm not saying it's been eliminated. But it was rampant. It was before my time, before I was born, but obviously I've read history, and I know that there is something wrong when a person of color can't get from state to state without stopping at a public restroom or a public lunchroom to have a sandwich.
STOSSEL: But the public restroom was run by the government, and maybe at the time that was necessary.
KELLY: But that's not what Rand Paul said. Rand Paul agreed that if it's run by the government, yes intervention is fine. He took issue with the public accommodations, with private businesses being forced to pony up under the discrimination laws.
STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law
KELLY: What?
STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.
Does the truth hurt?Oh, please. Try to be at least a little original.
The fact that a large number of people want to do something has no bearing on whether that act is ethical. The libertarian position is that it is wrong to initiate aggression. It doesn't matter whether a lot of people wish to do so or a single individual wishes to do so. In either case the initiation of aggression is wrong. A group of people has not special authority that does not belong to any individual.
Does the truth hurt?
No. I'm tired of people supporting special rights. That's what it boils down to.Nope. If you told it we have a discussion. But as you choose to leave discourse and instead battle stereotypes, there's reall no place else to go. You've already conceded.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?