Bigots are not the only ones hurt by bans on discrimination.

[Calabrio]

Paul and the Private Parts
Bigots are not the only ones hurt by bans on discrimination.
Jacob Sullum | May 26, 2010

Last week James Clyburn, a former civil rights activist who is now a Democratic congressman from South Carolina, warned that if Rand Paul is elected to represent Kentucky in the Senate, "it will be the first step…to turning back the gains that we started making way back in the 1860s." The comment, provoked by the Republican candidate's criticism of the federal ban on racial discrimination in places of "public accommodation," was not just hyperbolic but radically misguided, because Paul's position is based on the same principle that led to the abolition of slavery and the long struggle for equality that followed it: the principle of self-ownership.

If we own ourselves, it follows that no one else can own us—the most obvious way in which slavery violates human rights. It also follows that we own our labor, which means we decide who benefits from it and under what terms, and the fruits of our labor, which means we control access to our property. All these rights were flagrantly violated not only by slavery but by the racist Jim Crow regime that succeeded it, which forced businesses to discriminate against blacks as customers and employees.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to eliminate state-imposed segregation and all other forms of official discrimination against blacks. While wholeheartedly supporting that goal, which belatedly implemented the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law, Paul expressed qualms about the provisions banning private discrimination, which impinged on the same liberties—freedom of contract, freedom of association, and property rights—that were routinely disregarded under Jim Crow.

Paul noted that liberty would not mean much if it did not include the ability to say and do "abhorrent things." Just as freedom of speech and freedom of association benefit the Ku Klux Klan along with the NAACP, the right to control one's property and to choose one's customers benefits the bigot along with former slaves and their descendants.

Paul's more sophisticated critics argued not that he was racist but that he was unrealistic. Given the social environment created by centuries of government-backed slavery and oppression, they said, segregation in the South would not have been eliminated simply by withdrawing state support for it. Even if every racist law and government policy were abolished, racist business practices would have lingered as long as there was a demand for them or as long as owners were willing to pay an economic price for their own bigotry.

But before concluding that new infringements on liberty were necessary to remove the stain left by past infringements, consider some unforeseen consequences of the federal ban on private discrimination. The precedent has encouraged an assault on freedom of association, as illustrated by demands that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Christian student groups, and online dating services adopt gay-friendly policies.

The blurring of the distinction between public and private property has invited a wide array of meddlesome regulations, ranging from bans on smoking in bars and restaurants to unfunded mandates requiring expensive renovations to accommodate customers in wheelchairs. As Paul noted, the "public accommodation" rationale even has been cited as a pretext for forcing business owners to allow guns on their property.

In upholding the ban on discrimination by places of public accommodation, the Supreme Court loosened constitutional restraints on federal authority, extending it to cover businesses with tangential connections to interstate commerce, such as a motel that serves travelers or an Illinois restaurant that uses Idaho potatoes. This absurd stretching of the Commerce Clause, usually applauded by progressives, has led to results even they do not like, such as federal restrictions on abortion and attempts to override state policies regarding medical marijuana and assisted suicide.

A broad license to interfere with property rights and freedom of contract inevitably deprives people of choices they value. Rand Paul deserves credit for pointing out that we cannot abridge the freedom of those we despise without endangering our own freedom.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

 

[foxpaws]

Paul noted that liberty would not mean much if it did not include the ability to say and do "abhorrent things." Just as freedom of speech and freedom of association benefit the Ku Klux Klan along with the NAACP, the right to control one's property and to choose one's customers benefits the bigot along with former slaves and their descendants.

This isn't true - it doesn't benefit the former slave, if the former slave is within a minority. Being allowed to be a member of the KKK is freedom of speech. Being forced out of business because of your color, and your color only, isn't freedom of speech, it is oppression by the majority, which the constitution is suppose to prevent.

Paul's more sophisticated critics argued not that he was racist but that he was unrealistic. Given the social environment created by centuries of government-backed slavery and oppression, they said, segregation in the South would not have been eliminated simply by withdrawing state support for it. Even if every racist law and government policy were abolished, racist business practices would have lingered as long as there was a demand for them or as long as owners were willing to pay an economic price for their own bigotry.

And his sophisticated critics are correct. The environment, and how the free market works would have continued the segregation of the south, at the expense of the black. The class system created by discrimination, discrimination carried out by a majority, to segregate a minority, would have continued. There, in fact, would have been an economic benefit in the south to hold to 'all white', the idea that there was an economic price to pay for bigots was false in the south.

But before concluding that new infringements on liberty were necessary to remove the stain left by past infringements, consider some unforeseen consequences of the federal ban on private discrimination. The precedent has encouraged an assault on freedom of association, as illustrated by demands that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Christian student groups, and online dating services adopt gay-friendly policies.

So, the fact that Boy Scouts now have blacks as part of their membership is a bad thing? Or is it just the homophobic writer is afraid that allowing an openly gay teenager into the ranks of the boy scouts will taint them forever?

The blurring of the distinction between public and private property has invited a wide array of meddlesome regulations, ranging from bans on smoking in bars and restaurants to unfunded mandates requiring expensive renovations to accommodate customers in wheelchairs. As Paul noted, the "public accommodation" rationale even has been cited as a pretext for forcing business owners to allow guns on their property.

Once again - choice - smoking vs non-choice - handicapped. And the idea that business owners being forced to allow guns on their property-where has that become law - this author is using examples that aren't law, to scare.

A broad license to interfere with property rights and freedom of contract inevitably deprives people of choices they value. Rand Paul deserves credit for pointing out that we cannot abridge the freedom of those we despise without endangering our own freedom.

And how about abridging the freedom of minorities - apparently it is OK to do that just so long as our freedoms aren't stepped on. Is it a broad license to force businesses, which operate within a public sector, to not be allowed to discriminate for causes that aren't choice? If so, I now also have to deal with 'no whites' signs, I have to now deal with 'Women need not apply'. Has my freedom now been curtailed?

 

[shagdrum]

it doesn't benefit the former slave, if the former slave is within a minority.

Liberty does not benefit a former slave?!

In your zeal to dishonestly re frame and misdirect, you tend to make some truly absurd statements.

Being forced out of business because of your color, and your color only, isn't freedom of speech, it is oppression by the majority, which the constitution is suppose to prevent.

This is nothing more the an red herring that inherently distorts what specifically the constitution is and is not supposed to prevent. The Constitution guards against the tyranny of the majority. A very specific concept with a very specific applications (especially in the U.S. Constitution). It has absolutely nothing to do with business or being forced out of business.

You are spreading disinformation and lies. Again.

Ever the postmodernist.

 

[foxpaws]

Liberty does not benefit a former slave?!

In your zeal to dishonestly re frame and misdirect, you tend to make some truly absurd statements.

Not if Liberty is in 'name' only. Was the slave free if discrimination was just another form of slavery as it was in the south? If you are required to use back doors, have menial jobs that pay poorly, not be allowed to vote, you have just traded one yoke of oppression for another. The blacks weren't free in the south - their 'liberty' was a joke. I guess they were allowed to starve, I suppose that is freedom. They traded being owned to being subjugated by the white majority.

This is nothing more the an red herring that inherently distorts what specifically the constitution is and is not supposed to prevent. The Constitution guards against the tyranny of the majority. A very specific concept with a very specific applications (especially in the U.S. Constitution). It has absolutely nothing to do with business or being forced out of business.

You are spreading disinformation and lies. Again.

Ever the postmodernist.

Yes, this has everything to do with business. Tyranny of the majority deals with business issues as well. If you allow the majority businesses to discriminate it dominoes to the extent that minority businesses are destined to fail. Everything from economics of scale to opportunity to the ability to weather economic fluctuations favor the majority in business. And as goes business so goes the population segment it represents if you have a system that allows discrimination. As black businesses fail because they are a minority, the black population will also suffer.

Allowing the majority to discriminate, whether in business, law, opportunity, employment, is tyranny. You cannot separate discriminating against a minority in a business landscape from discriminating against a minority under the guise of law. As the majority increases its power in the business sphere, it also gains power in the political realm. As the majority starts to control the political realm it starts to control government. As government is controlled, so the courts are controlled. And then you have tyranny. It is a snowball effect shag... And it is exactly what happened in the south. History repeats itself over and over again on this issue. Nazi Germany is a great example of how discrimination in the private sector (the Jews, a minority, weren't allowed to do certain business things, they weren't allowed into certain stores, banks, etc.) escalates into discrimination on a public level.

 

[Calabrio]

Should it be illegal for a black family with a small restaurant to refuse service to a truck load of klan members?

What if the "God Hates :q:q:qs" people want to sit at a both, can you deny them entry into your private building?

And if not, what does it mean to have personal liberty and private property if have no right to free association or speech?

You have total faith in the government, but no faith in individuals or people in general. According to you, people are intolerant and evil, so in response, you give ultimate power and authority to the federal government, as though powerful government could never be corrupt and evil.

And then you have the twisted nerve to use the Nazi example to defended your authoritarian point.

 

[cammerfe]

...it doesn't benefit the former slave.../QUOTE]

I wonder how many former slaves there are around.

It's quite common, in the get-toe to have doors of businesses locked and to have to be buzzed in.
I believe it's fairly common on Rodeo Drive also.

Dirty bigoted B A S T A R D S.
KS

 

[FIND]

Should it be illegal for a black family with a small restaurant to refuse service to a truck load of klan members?

One would think we could draw a distinction here. They have actively made a choice, and this choice can be disruptive to the business, and possibly result in harm to others. Denying them service based upon these types of issues is completely different from denying service based upon race or some other issue a person has no choice in.

 

[foxpaws]

Should it be illegal for a black family with a small restaurant to refuse service to a truck load of klan members?

Hate groups are not protected by CRA. Once again choice vs non choice - hate groups are a choice - skin color isn't. They couldn't deny service to a group of whites - but to a recognizable group of Klansmen - yes. They chose to be Klansmen, they do not chose to be white.

What if the "God Hates :q:q:qs" people want to sit at a both, can you deny them entry into your private building?

What is the 'god hates' group, and once again, is it a group that chooses 'god hates' or do they not have a choice, that they must be 'god hates,' similar to gender?

I cannot be denied access into a restaurant for the simple reason that I am a woman. However, it I decide that I should celebrate topless tuesday by going to the local sushi joint sans blouse - that is a choice, and the restaurant has the right to close their door to me. If I yell at patrons that Amish people are really satan worshipers - I can be denied service, that is a choice I made.

You have total faith in the government, but no faith in individuals or people in general. According to you, people are intolerant and evil, so in response, you give ultimate power and authority to the federal government, as though powerful government could never be corrupt and evil.

I have said many times, I don't have total faith in the government - what I have is a vote, and the ability to get rid of those in power - to make my voice heard. Government often is corrupt and evil, but, our founding fathers sort of thought this through - you can vote out the government. This year we get to completely change the complexion of the hill - we get this opportunity every 2 years... Our government isn't set up to allow for absolute power, so the government won't corrupt absolutely... the three branches do 'check and balance' very well.

However, I can't vote out the restaurant owner that bars his door to minorities, I can decide not to patronize him, but the bigots that agree with him will make him a millionaire, and reinforce that 'discrimination' is a good thing, a profitable thing. But if the government looks on and says 'we don't agree - but it is his 'right' so he gets to stay open and continue to deny access to minorities', I have the opportunity to vote in a government that says - no, it isn't 'right' for private business to discriminate for reasons that have nothing to do with conscious choice, like the color your skin, or your gender.

And then you have the twisted nerve to use the Nazi example to defended your authoritarian point.

Yes I do - because the right on this forum goes for the 'nazi' constantly - how does it feel? And guess what - in this case it is justified. How did the Nazi's start to vilify the Jews - they did it with discrimination, government allowed discrimination within private business.

How did the southern states keep the blacks subjugated - with government allowed discrimination in private business. They invented separate but equal in government institutions and let businesses continue to discriminate.

 

[Calabrio]

So, should the federal government enforce laws that make everything "good" required, and all bad behavior "illegal?"

What eventually becomes a protected class?
And if the government can enforce how you run your business, can it also ban hateful speech?

Where do you people draw the line?

A racist store owner isn't a tyrant.
He's an idiot. He can't rob me of my freedom, he can merely inconvenience me. But an all power federal government can become a hard tyranny overnight.

Freedom comes with responsibility, it even allows people to do things you or I would call ignorant or ugly.

 

[foxpaws]

It's quite common, in the get-toe to have doors of businesses locked and to have to be buzzed in.
I believe it's fairly common on Rodeo Drive also.

It is to protect the goods - not to bar minorities or discriminate against gender.

I bet on Rodeo Drive they buzz in Beyonce... Will Smith... Do you think they would buzz you in KS?

 

[foxpaws]

Where do you people draw the line?

A racist store owner isn't a tyrant.
He's an idiot. He can't rob me of my freedom, he can merely inconvenience me. But an all power federal government can become a hard tyranny overnight.

Freedom comes with responsibility, it even allows people to do things you or I would call ignorant or ugly.

One racist store owner is an idiot - 100 racist store owners equals tyranny. They can rob you of your freedom, and they can create government that will become a hard tyranny - all you have to do is look at our own example Cal - the south. That is exactly what happened. Powerful businessmen created state governments that reflected their bigotry, that created a court system that allowed Klansmen to walk free after killing blacks. There is a reason the Civil Rights Movement happened - and there is a reason that we don't allow discrimination in the public or private sector, because the American people decided a line should be drawn.

And I am proud that line was drawn, and continues to be drawn to this day and hopefully will be drawn far into the future.

 

[Calabrio]

One racist store owner is an idiot - 100 racist store owners equals tyranny.

No, that would just be a hundred idiots.
At most they can create a situation where you're inconvenienced. However, if I lived in a town with a hundred Black Panther owned stores, I'd rather shop somewhere else. And frankly, I'd rather a hateful bigot made it known that he was a hateful bigot, so that I then wouldn't unknowingly be supporting them.

In fact, since it's not a real tyranny, I would hope to retain my freedom of movement and simply go to another town or move.

They can rob you of your freedom, and they can create government that will become a hard tyranny - all you have to do is look at our own example Cal - the south.

All you have to do is look at 20th century Europe.
China.
The Soviet Union..
But, incredibly, your answer to this false choice is to give government more power? If corrupt people can take the controls of government and impose tyranny at their will by controlling regulation, your answer is to centralize even more power? To use your foolish Nazi analogy from last night, that's exactly what you DO NOT do. Then the massive central government can make discrimination institutional and national. That's when you truly see ugliness, discrimination, and government supported violence.

Look at the early 19th century- but NOT in the South.
Look at what the FEDERAL government was doing.

NO ONE disagrees with the components of the CRA that prevented the government involvement of institutional racism. The abolition of Jim Crow Laws, or providing funding to institutions that engaged in racist behavior. That same constitution that limits the federal government, does impose a few limits on the states as well, because of the 14th amendment. So the false racial tyranny you spoke of was unconstitutional and reasonable to address federally.

That is exactly what happened. Powerful businessmen created state governments that reflected their bigotry, that created a court system that allowed Klansmen to walk free after killing blacks.

Oh you mean the Democrat party? The KKK was "the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party" after reconstruction, you know.

In this statement you manage to dishonestly attack business, federalism, states right, and local government, while in other threads you will lie to us and tell us you support capitalism, federalism, and states rights.

But, to go a little further with your point here, if the federal government has the power to make all bad things and bad behavior go away with a penstroke, why didn't the isolated racism of the early 20th century not all disappear overnight after the civil rights act was passed? In fact, why don't they just outlaw all behavior that you deem to be bad from Washington? Won't that solve all the problems in the world?

Of course not.

No one- absolutely NO ONE- has argued that intended effort of the Civil Rights Act was bad. And no one, I emphasize NO ONE I know of, is arguing that ALL of the bill was bad. The abolition of the Jim Crow Laws and any systemic racism that was directly or indirectly support by public money, ect. No one argues against these things. The government doesn't have some right to discriminate or select who it associates with.

The issue is specifically with private property- and NOT limited to racial laws.
This SAME principle applies to a private business when the government steps in and declares that smoking is illegal in your facility. Or that it's now illegal to provide salt with a dinner at your restaurant. Or that you have to hire a 400lb transvestite to work at your restaurant that sells wings. Or that you have to close down your restaurant if you can't afford to have wider doorways installed to accommodate fat people.

Or, Paul's example, that you have to allow a person carrying firearms into your business. If you don't like guns, and you have a business, you should be able to set limits on who can and can not enter.

Rand Paul wasn't, I'm not, no one is arguing these things because they think racism is behavior that should be tolerated by individuals.

There is a reason the Civil Rights Movement happened - and there is a reason that we don't allow discrimination in the public or private sector, because the American people decided a line should be drawn.

You're spinning this as though people who support property rights and are critical of the imposition on these rights in the CRA are inturn endorsing racism or disagreeing with the bill in total.

That is not the case.
However, government should not violate the rights of one party in an effort to improve the status of another. And there's an element of that in the bill. And it's that SPECIFIC concept that is discussed and criticized. Not the goal, not some of the other legislation, and not the systematic.

 

[foxpaws]

No, that would just be a hundred idiots.
At most they can create a situation where you're inconvenienced. However, if I lived in a town with a hundred Black Panther owned stores, I'd rather shop somewhere else. And frankly, I'd rather a hateful bigot made it known that he was a hateful bigot, so that I then wouldn't unknowingly be supporting them.

In fact, since it's not a real tyranny, I would hope to retain my freedom of movement and simply go to another town or move.

In a town with 102 stores, it is a tyranny. And it is more than an inconvenience, if you are dirt poor – and have a large extended family unit – you can’t move, you are subject to your surroundings.

The 2 stores that are left – what do they get to do, they get to raise prices – and create a cycle of poverty – you are stuck – you can barely afford groceries, let alone a college education for your kids, or to move. Poverty cycles do that – they reinforce the situation. Discrimination reinforces poverty. The people in power in the south knew that – they wanted the blacks poor and helpless. You can do that by discriminating and segregating in public institutions and private business. The federal government had to stop the cycle - and that cycle includes private business Cal.

All you have to do is look at 20th century Europe.
China.
The Soviet Union..
But, incredibly, your answer to this false choice is to give government more power? If corrupt people can take the controls of government and impose tyranny at their will by controlling regulation, your answer is to centralize even more power? To use your foolish Nazi analogy from last night, that's exactly what you DO NOT do. Then the massive central government can make discrimination institutional and national. That's when you truly see ugliness, discrimination, and government supported violence.

Oh you mean the Democrat party? The KKK was "the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party" after reconstruction, you know.

And China and the Soviet Union don’t have free elections Cal – we do. We give government power to prevent tyranny, like the tyranny of discrimination. You centralize power – as you stated in the south you had to, because the feds were the only entity that was able to create equality in the southern states. And yes, the KKK were Democrats. I love how the right always brings this up. Do you know why the Democrat party was so big in the south during the late 1800s and the first 3/4 or so of the 1900s – because Lincoln was a Republican. Only reason – they hated Lincoln. If you look at their policies and beliefs, they actually were closer to northern Republicans, and in fact, now are associated with the Republican Party. The people haven’t changed their leanings, they were conservative Dems, now they are Conservative Reps. – it is just now I guess Lincoln isn’t such a dirty world, perhaps Kennedy/Johnson are bigger dirty words now (Dems). An interesting bit of history… But, I know that ‘label’ is so important to you Cal – good to compartmentalize everything, create that black and white world.

The feds were needed so the states could no longer foster ugliness, discrimination, and government supported violence.

In this statement you manage to dishonestly attack business, federalism, states right, and local government, while in other threads you will lie to us and tell us you support capitalism, federalism, and states rights.

But, to go a little further with your point here, if the federal government has the power to make all bad things and bad behavior go away with a penstroke, why didn't the isolated racism of the early 20th century not all disappear overnight after the civil rights act was passed? In fact, why don't they just outlaw all behavior that you deem to be bad from Washington? Won't that solve all the problems in the world?

So cal – do you disagree that powerful businessmen help create state governments that reflected their bigotry, that created a court system that allowed Klansmen to walk free after killing blacks? That is exactly what happened – or are you into revising history now? There is absolutely nothing dishonest about that statement. Because of a deal made to give Hayes the presidency in 1876 – federal troops were removed from the south – and then the southern states disenfranchised black voters, and created a series of laws that mandated segregation, segregation that most local business supported, because most business was owned by whites. The states were left alone by the Feds.

National businesses didn’t support segregation – like the railroads. But eventually they caved to local law, laws crafted by southern Democrat leaders and the businessmen who help get them elected. Do you know that in the south the state governments and local businesses joined together to make sure that black veterans didn’t get the full benefits of the GI Bill – Black veterans were channeled to low paying jobs, not allowed to go to college (basically because there were so few black colleges, and they couldn’t handle the influx of GIs returning from WWII), and were denied housing and business loans that were available to white veterans under the bill. It was a collaboration between state/local government officials and businesses. Southern businessmen used the race issue to keep unions out of the south – they had seen that Pullman workers unions, along with other mostly black unions in the north were growing in strength and would be a threat to segregation.

The problem didn't just 'disappear' after 1964 because that behavior was ingrained - some people are bigots, and the southern states had fostered that bigotry for decades.

So, should we allow discrimination again - so once again we can foster bigotry, and so it can once again become ingrained in our society?

No one- absolutely NO ONE- has argued that intended effort of the Civil Rights Act was bad. And no one, I emphasize NO ONE I know of, is arguing that ALL of the bill was bad. The abolition of the Jim Crow Laws and any systemic racism that was directly or indirectly support by public money, ect. No one argues against these things. The government doesn't have some right to discriminate or select who it associates with.

The issue is specifically with private property- and NOT limited to racial laws.
This SAME principle applies to a private business when the government steps in and declares that smoking is illegal in your facility. Or that it's now illegal to provide salt with a dinner at your restaurant. Or that you have to hire a 400lb transvestite to work at your restaurant that sells wings. Or that you have to close down your restaurant if you can't afford to have wider doorways installed to accommodate fat people.

And I know exactly what Rand Paul said, and then retracted – that it is Title II that he has issues with – I have stated that over and over and over again – I have made it very clear that what we are talking about here is the fact that he, up until last week, wanted to allow segregation/discrimination in private business.

So, lets look at what you talk about specifically. One - smoking – it is a chosen behavior – state (note not federal) government can regulate smoking in a place where there are lots of people. The state government also tells you have to wash your hands if you are a food server – it is a health issue – just like smoking. The state government has cleanliness standards for the kitchen. There are lots of regulations regarding behavior and private business. You cannot smoke for 1 hour while you are eating dinner (chosen behavior). You cannot ‘not be black’ for 1 hour while you are eating dinner.

Let me see – no salt at dinner – really cal – has that law passed? It hasn’t, it won’t, quit fear mongering and lying, you are better than that. Hire transvestites – nope, wider doorways for fat people – nope (chosen behavior), however for wheelchairs (non chosen behavior) – yep.

Or, Paul's example, that you have to allow a person carrying firearms into your business. If you don't like guns, and you have a business, you should be able to set limits on who can and can not enter.

Once again – there are no laws that require a business owner to allow firearms. Got the statues on that Cal? Quit lying. Paul lied, you don’t have to continue it. Heck, even in the old west some establishments required you to check your gun at the bar. The owners were free to do that, just as today they are free to turn you away if you are packing (chosen behavior, you can leave your gun in a locked trunk, you cannot leave your gender at the door - non chosen behavior).

Rand Paul wasn't, I'm not, no one is arguing these things because they think racism is behavior that should be tolerated by individuals.

You're spinning this as though people who support property rights and are critical of the imposition on these rights in the CRA are inturn endorsing racism or disagreeing with the bill in total.

And this issue isn’t about racism, and it is only about Title II of the CRA. It is about what happens if a majority is allowed to discriminate against a minority, anywhere. History has shown over and over again exactly what happens. It will happen again, it is the way we are. It is called tyranny Cal – and the government has to step in to make sure that the cycle doesn’t start again.

I do not believe we are ‘noble.’ We will do exactly the same thing once again if discrimination is allowed in any form in this country. It is a line that needs to be drawn and at a Federal level - the states and private business have shown that they will gladly walk all over your civil rights.

 

[shagdrum]

One would think we could draw a distinction here. They have actively made a choice, and this choice can be disruptive to the business, and possibly result in harm to others. Denying them service based upon these types of issues is completely different from denying service based upon race or some other issue a person has no choice in.

So your conceding that businesses should have a right to discriminate. The question simply becomes when they should and shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

However, you will still run into problems of determining what is and is not discrimination (enforcement) and trade-offs in individual liberty in the pursuit of a "colorblind society".

 

[shagdrum]

If people are inherently corrupt, racist, etc. then any government institution established and/or run by those people will be corrupt, racist, etc. If the problem is character flaws in people then it is utterly foolish to look to government to fix that problem and change people. Those same issues will simply arise but with the power and implied threat of force of the government behind it. Much better to dilute that evil by not giving it the power of the government.

Foxy, your "justifications" are based on absurd speculation and misdirection and are ultimately counter-intuitive. One racist business owner, a hundred or a thousand racist business owners are never the problem. It is when racist people get control of the government that the problem arises. Jim Crow laws were not put in place by business owners but by politicians.

Tyranny can not come from the private sector. It can only come from the government. Only the government has the ability to systematically take away individual liberty and to use force. At worst the private sector can infringe on individual liberty on an incidental basis. Institutional discrimination can ONLY come from the government.

You can go on and on about the tyranny of the majority but that can ONLY happen through the GOVERNMENT. Private individuals and private businesses alone cannot impose a tyranny of the majority.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes, this has everything to do with business. Tyranny of the majority deals with business issues as well. If you allow the majority businesses to discriminate it dominoes to the extent that minority businesses are destined to fail. Everything from economics of scale to opportunity to the ability to weather economic fluctuations favor the majority in business. And as goes business so goes the population segment it represents if you have a system that allows discrimination. As black businesses fail because they are a minority, the black population will also suffer.

This is nothing but an attempt to distort and inject a false premise. A tyranny of the majority can ONLY come through the government. Only through gross hyperbolic speculation and mere assertion can you even claim that "Tyranny of the majority deals with business issues as well".

As is typical, Foxy is attempting to redefine a concept more broadly to fit her argument and her agenda; specifically, promoting the Marxist exploitation narrative. Most socialists look to twist facts to fit that narrative and that is what Foxy excels at. In fact, in America, the rhetorical bludgeon of racism is a useful tool to exploit in twisting and spinning the truth to fit that narrative. For instance, dishonestly equating institutional discrimination with out and out slavery like when saying things like, "Was the slave free if discrimination was just another form of slavery as it was in the south?". Part of the Marxist exploitation narrative is that the worker is the slave to the business owner.

When you have to twist reality to fit your world view; your world view is wrong. However, devout ideologues will never admit that to themselves, let alone anyone else.

One means of deceit is to use technical sounding terms to give greater credence to what you are saying. However, using a technical sounding term doesn't give lies any more validity; they are still lies.

For example; economies of scale are in no way a means to enact institutional racism as is being inferring. In fact, economies of scale would, if anything, work against institutional racism.

Economies of scale, in microeconomics, are the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. They are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as scale is increased.​

If a producer is not serving a large part of the market (by refusing to serve blacks) they are not going be as able to expand their business as their competitors who are serving that part of the market (blacks). Therefore, their competitors would have an advantage over them.

However, if those racist businessmen can lobby the government to enact laws in their favor (Jim Crow Laws) due to racists in positions of power, then they can take away that advantage and in doing so institutionalize racism. However, they have to go through the government to do it.

Again, tyranny of the majority can ONLY come through the government.

 

[foxpaws]

If people are inherently corrupt, racist, etc. then any government institution established and/or run by those people will be corrupt, racist, etc. If the problem is character flaws in people then it is utterly foolish to look to government to fix that problem and change people. Those same issues will simply arise but with the power and implied threat of force of the government behind it. Much better to dilute that evil and but not giving it the power of the government.

Foxy, your "justifications" are based on absurd speculation and are counter-intuitive. One racist business owner, a hundred or a thousand racist business owners are never the problem. It is when racist people get control of the government that the problem arises. Jim Crow laws were not put in place by business owners but the politicians.

They were put in place by politicians who were a reflection of their voting base. That is what happens shag - our laws are a reflection of us. We vote, or do you forget that? If the voting populace didn't want Jim Crow laws, they wouldn't have voted in reps that promised them. Plus, those reps, and the white voting block knew they needed to keep blacks out of the voting processes - so it was a cycle - people who were afraid of blacks, and blacks acquiring power and wealth (removing the same from whites) voted in politicians that promised that they would take care of the 'black' problem.

Tyranny can not come from the private sector. It can only come from the government. Only the government has the ability to systematically take away individual liberty and to use force. At worst the private sector can infringe on individual liberty on an incidental basis. Institutional discrimination can ONLY come from the government.

However, it is the people who control the government shag - as I stated before, we vote in people who create the laws. Businesses give large amounts to politicians (soon to be much more, now with the recent SCOTUS decision), businesses are the ones with huge lobbies. Business can control government easily. Look at all those laws on the books that favor business, especially at state and local levels. Zoning benefits to get in a Walmart. Removing state taxes from oil revenues (Colorado had that). Just like in the south - it was local and state governments that created segregation and discrimination laws. Who can remove those laws, when it is a majority that is subjugating a minority? The feds. That is one of the big points of our federal government, we make sure that the small isn't over powered by the large.

You can go on and on about the tyranny of the majority but that can ONLY happen through the GOVERNMENT. Private individuals and private businesses alone cannot impose a tyranny of the majority.

No they can't - but they create a system that in turn, creates tyranny. Just like they did in the south shag. If private business wasn't part of the overall picture, segregation/discrimination wouldn't have worked. Businesses could have stood up for equal access, equal rights - but they didn't. Why? Because whites had all the cards, and with segregation/discrimination at all levels, it kept the black poor and ineffectual, and continued a cycle of whites in power, blacks subjugated. Give black equal access to jobs - oh my gosh, they might acquire wealth - with wealth comes power, with power comes change. Give black equal access to stores, then, they could buy goods at the same price as whites - they would have more money - can't have that, next thing you know they are going to want to vote.

To keep the minority weak, you keep them out of power in the government. To create a weak minority, you create a cycle of poverty with business practices. They work hand in hand Shag.

It is a cycle, and one that feeds upon itself shag. The majority acquires power and wealth because they are creating a class system, a class system that is created at the 'private enterprise level' and then the majority gets to dictate government. You need a strong federal government to make sure the weak are not second class citizens, both in the private sector and the public arena.

 

[Calabrio]

In a town with 102 stores, it is a tyranny.

No, it's just an unrealistic, inconvenience.
Your liberty and freedom isn't being taken from you.
The better representation of tyranny is when the power of government is used to undermine your private property rights, steal your labor, and rob you of your independence.

You've actually presented an opportunity, because 1 industrious store keeper could open their doors and cater to the non-discriminating population of the town and make a fortune.

And it is more than an inconvenience, if you are dirt poor – and have a large extended family unit – you can’t move, you are subject to your surroundings.

And if you have no feet...and you're missing both arms, and your nose itches....

You don't impose federal regulation on people that rob them of their rights inorder to address a situation that does not exist, but isn't realistic either. You don't pass laws because extraordinary situations might happen that would inconvenience someone.

The federal government had to stop the cycle - and that cycle includes private business Cal.

Well it's a good thing that the federal government solved the cycle of poverty in the black community. Well done!

And China and the Soviet Union don’t have free elections Cal – we do.

And so did the German Nazis. The Italian Fascists. Your friends love to tell us how Hugo Chavez was part of a democratic revolution in Venzeluela. Castro also was "elected."

We give government power to prevent tyranny, like the tyranny of discrimination.

It's very frustrating to have any conversation with you, or people like you, because of the way you bastardize the language.

The tyranny of discrimination?
This is almost as stupid and un-American as your "freedom from want" claims in the past.

Discrimination is not tyranny.
A racist isn't necessarily a tyrant.
That only happens when they have control of a powerful government.

That can't happen when you have LIMITED government, something you oppose. That can happen when you have the a massive, powerful, national government, like you support. Not only CAN it happen, it HAS, IN THIS COUNTRY.

And yes, the KKK were Democrats. I love how the right always brings this up.

and in fact, now are associated with the Republican Party.

We'll have to ask Robert Byrd about that.

So cal – do you disagree that powerful businessmen help create state governments that reflected their bigotry, that created a court system that allowed Klansmen to walk free after killing blacks?

Do you deny that the federal government had powerful businessmen and politicians helped create a court system that allowed citizens to walk free after killing people or races that the federal government had considered dangerous?

Do you deny that the Wilson administration, the administration many histories say that Obama seems to be emulating, engaged in tyrannical policies that jailed people for dissent, had an office of propaganda, and jailed tens of thousands of Americans for disagreeing with the President?

Do you deny that FDR set up internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Italian Americans? Do you deny that the commerce policies of FDR were fascistic in nature?

My point?

You're myth of this all knowing, benevolent federal government is DANGEROUS. You're desire to continue to transfer more of our liberties and individual rights to it is DANGEROUS.

Was it bad that there was some remenents of institutional racism in the South in the early 20th century. Yes. And was it good that the federal government used it's power under the 14th amendment to address the racism that was being perpetuated by the states. Yes.

But that isn't the point.
This isn't about ENDS, this is about MEANS.
Because if the means don't matter, and the constitution doesn't matter, and individual liberties and property rights don't matter- EVEN when they really, really inconvenience someone or make them uncomfortable, Then nothing matters.

Then the massive, all powerful federal government can do WHAT EVER it wants. There are no limits.

From little things like whether we can have transfats in our cookies, salt shakers on our dinner tables to what temperature we're allowed to set the climate control in our homes.

The consitution isn't designed to make this country a utopia. The founding philosophers knew that such a pursuit was impossible.

It's designed to protect the rights of the individual BY limiting the power of the federal government and respecting the individual.

So, should we allow discrimination again - so once again we can foster bigotry, and so it can once again become ingrained in our society?

You're saying discriminate, but let's be specific. You're talking about racism directed at blacks. discriminate may include that, but that what it means.

So I ask-
Am I not a racist because I'm afraid it's against the law?
Would you be a racist or refuse employment to a black person if the CRA had not passed?
Would all of these restaurants sudden just decide to ban minorities if the CRA were ammended (not that anyone is proposing such a thing)?

No.
The federal law has nothing to do with either of our attitudes.

wanted to allow segregation/discrimination in private business

That's not an endorsement.
I think you should be allowed to pass out in a puddle of urine and vomit after drinking a bottle of grain alcohol while in the privacy of your own home. That doesn't mean I endorse such behavior. That doesn't mean I think anyone should do it. That doesn't mean I'd support or contribute to such a thing.

Private citizens and businesses are allowed to do ugly and destructive things.
You aren't forced to be a part of it.

So, lets look at what you talk about specifically.

We can make distinctions all day, but the principle is that same.

Let me see – no salt at dinner – really cal – has that law passed?

Why are the hypothetical examples any different than anything that has passed, other than being more dramatic and exaggerated?
The PRINCIPLE behind it is the same.

If the government can do one, you have given it that authority to do all of them and more.

And this issue isn’t about racism, and it is only about Title II of the CRA. It is about what happens if a majority is allowed to discriminate against a minority, anywhere.

You're right, it isn't about racism.
It's about property rights, individual liberty, free association, free speech, and tyrannical federal power.

History has shown over and over again exactly what happens. It will happen again, it is the way we are. It is called tyranny Cal – and the government has to step in to make sure that the cycle doesn’t start again.

A racist can't impose tyranny in a free country.
The government, when it has no limits on it's power, can impose tyranny.

You are bastardizing the language, redefining and reapplying words to mean the opposite of what they really mean. The black panthers aren't going to impose a tyranny on me, they don't have the power or institutions.

I'm far more worried about tyrannical abuse from a massive national government than I am from a isolated Southern racists from 1963.

I do not believe we are ‘noble.’ We will do exactly the same thing once again if discrimination is allowed in any form in this country. It is a line that needs to be drawn and at a Federal level - the states and private business have shown that they will gladly walk all over your civil rights.

If you're worried about history repeating itself, look at the people in your own political movement. Don't justify your authoritarian government by sighting some long dead Southern racists. Look at Wilson, FDR, look at the "democratically elected" marxist in Europe and around the world.

And stop dishonestly presenting yourself as a federalist or someone who supports limited government. It's offensive for you to continue to do so. You're not. You know it.

But, as always, the ends justify whatever dishonest, disgusting, foul, means you have to employ, don't they.

I'm not offended that you believe what you do... I'm deeply offended and disgusted by the dishonest means you go about trying to trick people into accepting your falsehoods. If you don't respect the constitution, have the integrity to just say so. If you think that federalism was a mistaken concept of the 18th century, have the integrity to say so. If you think that capitalism and private property are evil institution, have the integrity to say so.

If you're confident in your believes and philosophy, state them clearly and defend them honestly.

You can't do that.
You won't do that.
And for that, I have no respect for you on a personal level, because it's not that you're wrong, or that we don't agree. There are people with whom I passionately disagree with but that I have tremendous personal and intellectual respect for. But they say what they mean and mean what they say. But you're doing something that I define as being profoundly evil, your actively engaged in trying to fool people into giving up their freedom to authoritarians like yourself. It doesn't matter if your intentions are good, your methods are twisted and reprehensible.


But in summary-
if the states were complicate in this terror of racism, and I can sight plenty of federal examples far worse- then the answer is NOT more government.
It's less.
Because a weak institution can't impose a tyranny. The less government, be it state or federal, the less power they have to terrorize us or limit our freedoms.

 

[foxpaws]

This is nothing but an attempt to distort and inject a false premise. A tyranny of the majority can ONLY come through the government. Only through gross hyperbolic speculation and mere assertion can you even claim that "Tyranny of the majority deals with business issues as well".

Once again, here in the United States as much as you would like to pretend it isn't our government, is a reflection of us, especially at state and local levels. And at state and local levels is where the problem of segregation of the south happened. The government was a reflection of the majority power base - whites. Whites that had that power because they had more money. They had more money because of their businesses. Their businesses were strong because they voted in politicians that would keep it that way.

Can't you see the cycle there shag? It would have never changed without the feds stepping in.

For example; economies of scale are in no way a means to enact institutional racism as is being inferring. In fact, economies of scale would, if anything, work against institutional racism.

Economies of scale, in microeconomics, are the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. They are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as scale is increased.​

If a producer is not serving a large part of the market (by refusing to serve blacks) they are not going be as able to expand their business as their competitors who are serving that part of the market (blacks). Therefore, their competitors would have an advantage over them.

However, if you have a majority of owners that are white - that sell to the majority of people who are white - then who has the advantage of scale - whites. Because we are prejudicial shag - that cycle continues. The politics of prejudice, like in the south, allow one segment of the population to gain power while the other segment doesn't. The producer that sells to a store that allows blacks, will soon be banned from the stores that don't sell to blacks. Since the stores that cater to whites are more in number (whites are a majority), why would he want to eliminate the larger part of his customer base? He wouldn't. So, fewer and fewer suppliers sell to blacks... a cycle is started.

However, if those racist businessmen can lobby the government to enact laws in their favor (Jim Crow Laws) due to racists in positions of power, then they can take away that advantage and in doing so institutionalize racism. However, they have to go through the government to do it.

Again, tyranny of the majority can ONLY come through the government.

But who controlled the government in the south - the whites, and why did they control the government - because they were a majority. How did they guarantee that the blacks would never have a voice in government? You have to not only silence them in the halls of government, but you also have to make sure that they have no wealth to make their voices heard outside of government. You do that with segregating and discriminating in the private sector.

Heck - with wealth the minority can overrule the majority and create monarchies. Money is power - the government controls power - but money controls the government. Why do you think the communists keep people poor, because they know poor people have no voice.

Here, in the United States, where everyone has the right to vote, to isolate a group and create laws where they can't vote you have to take away their voice. How do you take away their voice - you make sure they are poor. Business is a big part of creating a poor society where you have the option of voting. The south had a head start, they had a very poor minority because of slavery. But, if you don't have that head start - how do you create a second class in a society where that group of people can vote, and have wealth? You first take away the wealth, everything else follows.

 

[shagdrum]

They were put in place by politicians who were a reflection of their voting base

Thank you for making my point.

Tyranny can ONLY come through the government.

However, it is the people who control the government shag - as I stated before, we vote in people who create the laws. Businesses give large amounts to politicians (soon to be much more, now with the recent SCOTUS decision), businesses are the ones with huge lobbies. Business can control government easily.

Again, thank you for making my point.

Tyranny can ONLY come through the government.

The private sector cannot cause tyranny. They can try and influence government, but only the government can cause tyranny.

The element of corporatism involved doesn't negate that truth but confirms truth. Corporatism is antithetical to Conservatism and Libertarianism. The Democrat party is the party of corporatism. Modern statists are the ones largely employing corporatism.

No they can't - but they create a system that in turn, creates tyranny.

Wrong again.

Only the government can create a system on the level of which you are talking about. Otherwise systems simply evolve naturally by keeping what works and discarding what doesn't and discrimination the likes of which you are talking about could not be a part of an evolved system because it is inefficient.

Slavery was kept around as long as it was because of political interests influencing government to protect that practice. The same holds true for institutional discrimination.

If private business wasn't part of the overall picture, segregation/discrimination wouldn't have worked.

If private business was left to it's own devices institutional discrimination would not have been possible.

Businesses could have stood up for equal access, equal rights - but they didn't. Why? Because whites had all the cards, and with segregation/discrimination at all levels, it kept the black poor and ineffectual, and continued a cycle of whites in power, blacks subjugated. Give black equal access to jobs - oh my gosh, they might acquire wealth - with wealth comes power, with power comes change. Give black equal access to stores, then, they could buy goods at the same price as whites - they would have more money - can't have that, next thing you know they are going to want to vote.

ever the postmodern marxist, eh?

This is nothing more then an attempt to misdirect and shift the conversation by continually injecting the marxist exploitation lie. None of what you said there, IN ANY WAY counters the point I raised. In fact, much of it confirms what I have been saying.

The thing about posmodernism is that it is built around the rejection of objective truth and reason as well as the promotion of the undermining of tradition, social norms and ultimately, the lessons of history; it is an idea ultimately built around willfull distortion and deception.

Postmodernism eschews wisdom in favor of cleverness.

Wisdom is aimed at finding the the truth while cleverness is aimed at finding a justification for a point of view.

Postmodernism turns intellectual dishonesty into a virtue.

Foxpaws entire approach to debate is that of the postmodernist. Her agenda is to promote the Marxist exploitation narrative.

To keep the minority weak, you keep them out of power in the government.

Once again, thanks for making my point.

To create a weak minority, you create a cycle of poverty with business practices.

Again the the Marxist exploitation lie.

Pure business practices doe not "create a cycle of poverty". Capitalism is the ONLY economic system that creates wealth and is THE reason we have a much higher standard of living then even our parents did at our age. Only GOVERNMENT can create a "cycle of poverty" (often with regulation influenced by corporatism). Just look at the war on poverty and how it utterly destroyed the black family unit.

The theory of social causation you cling to has been disproven countless times throughout history and you know it.

It is a cycle, and one that feeds upon itself shag.

Yep. And only the GOVERNMENT can put it in place.

The majority acquires power and wealth because they are creating a class system, a class system that is created at the 'private enterprise level' and then the majority gets to dictate government. You need a strong federal government to make sure the weak are not second class citizens, both in the private sector and the public arena.

After that little diatribe, there can be no doubt that you are promoting the Marxist exploitation narrative.

A Free market DOES NOT HAVE A RIGID CLASS SYSTEM. Historical facts bear this out. Only through dishonest manipulation of stats can it even be made to appear that there is a rigid class structure in place.

The truth is that mobility between classes ONLY happens in a free market because the free market, capitalism, is the ONLY economic system that CREATES WEALTH. More regulation only reduces that mobility because it inhibits the wealth creating mechanisms of the free market.

The "majority" cannot "create" ANY system EXCEPT through government. Aristocracies are enshrined in place through government. The ONLY party doing that is the party you vote for. The ONLY ideology doing that is the one you subscribe to.

When people don't have the possibility of earning enough wealth to change their class status, THAT is when a rigid class system is in place. Only through GOVERNMENT ACTION can that possibility of earning wealth be diminished or destroyed. The party attacking wealth is the DEMOCRAT party. That is because they are IDEOLOGICALLY PREDISPOSED to do just that because of the very lie you are promoting; the Marxist exploitation narrative (lie) aimed at giving an historical justification for social justice.

 

[shagdrum]

You don't impose federal regulation on people that rob them of their rights in order to address a situation that does not exist, but isn't realistic either. You don't pass laws because extraordinary situations might happen that would inconvenience someone.

quoted for truth.

 

[shagdrum]

Once again, here in the United States as much as you would like to pretend it isn't our government, is a reflection of us, especially at state and local levels.

Again, thanks for making my point.

Here is what I said in post #15:

If people are inherently corrupt, racist, etc. then any government institution established and/or run by those people will be corrupt, racist, etc. If the problem is character flaws in people then it is utterly foolish to look to government to fix that problem and change people. Those same issues will simply arise but with the power and implied threat of force of the government behind it. Much better to dilute that evil by not giving it the power of the government.​

Again, thanks.

The solution would seem to be to get business influence out of government (end corporatism). However, if you are going to regulate the private sector, it is only good business practice to try and work with the government to leverage that to your advantage; like cap-and-trade legislation aims to do.

As I have shown before, monopolies only arise through the government. Institutional racism can only happen by way of the government. All these problems that you want to put at the feet of the private sector actually stem from government and government being in bed with some businesses. It is policies that you have promoted (and politicians you voted for) that lead to this mess. The less a government regulates the economy (and private businesses) the less intertwined they are with businesses and the less likely corporatism is.

To say that government is the problem therefore government is the solution is absurd. You are simply trading a lower level of government for a higher (and more powerful) level of government. That approach continues to centralize power, which is the quickest means to a true tyranny of the majority.

Nazi Germany is a prime example. Socialists had dominated government for decades and centralized power in precisely the manner you are alluding to. When the National Socialists (Nazi) took power, there was no check on them and they were able to enshrine themselves in power and create a hard tyranny.

 

[FIND]

So your conceding that businesses should have a right to discriminate. The question simply becomes when they should and shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

However, you will still run into problems of determining what is and is not discrimination (enforcement) and trade-offs in individual liberty in the pursuit of a "colorblind society".

First off, I am not conceding anything, nor am I answering loaded questions like that. I am simply saying that if a person presents a clear threat, then you have certain rights. This has nothing to do with discrimination.

Secondly,

 

[shagdrum]

...nor am I answering loaded questions like that.

What question? I was simply making an observation (if you will note, there is no question mark in my post).

Also, if you are going to make an accusation of a "loaded question" it would be polite to point out why it is a loaded question.

Lastly, we don't need spell Nazi here. It only makes you look petty when you call attention to it in such an ostentatious and snarky manner.

 

[foxpaws]

No, it's just an unrealistic, inconvenience.
Your liberty and freedom isn't being taken from you.
The better representation of tyranny is when the power of government is used to undermine your private property rights, steal your labor, and rob you of your independence.

You've actually presented an opportunity, because 1 industrious store keeper could open their doors and cater to the non-discriminating population of the town and make a fortune.

That one businessman wouldn't be able to get supplies - because the supplier knows if he sells to him, he will lose 100 clients, and most businessmen aren't willing to take that risk. And the supplier that is willing to take that risk - is going to charge you for that risk. Your goods will cost more. Sorry-cycle starts again.

You don't impose federal regulation on people that rob them of their rights inorder to address a situation that does not exist, but isn't realistic either. You don't pass laws because extraordinary situations might happen that would inconvenience someone.

The CRA wasn't enacted because of some 'hypothetical problem'. It was enacted because there was a huge problem in the south.

Do you then repeal portions of that same law because you don't think it will happen again? That is being ignorant of history Cal. And, as everyone knows - history will repeat itself, but only if you are ignorant of history. The CRA works because it combines not allowing segregation and discrimination in both the public and private sector - if one goes down, they both could go down. You seem to want to take the risk that somehow we have gotten better - that creating discrimination on a private level won't escalate... What fairy tale world do you live in Cal? We are human, we are prejudicial, we will discriminate, we will allow the majority to tyrannize the minority. We have the means to not allow that, why remove parts of it?

Well it's a good thing that the federal government solved the cycle of poverty in the black community. Well done!

You don't think that the black community in the south is better off with CRA than it was without it Cal? Gosh - I guess they were better off in the 50s, lets go back - lets repeal the whole CRA - it obviously doesn't work.

sheesh...

And so did the German Nazis. The Italian Fascists. Your friends love to tell us how Hugo Chavez was part of a democratic revolution in Venzeluela. Castro also was "elected."

Ah, Cal - free elections - things like parties, choice, etc. have to be included if you have a free election... I believe Castro runs unopposed each time... I don't think that once Hitler got into power there was a choice 'B' on the ballot... Who ran against Mussolini in 1940 - ah, that is right, no one....

Once again... sheesh....

It's very frustrating to have any conversation with you, or people like you, because of the way you bastardize the language.

The tyranny of discrimination?
This is almost as stupid and un-American as your "freedom from want" claims in the past.

Discrimination is not tyranny.
A racist isn't necessarily a tyrant.
That only happens when they have control of a powerful government

And once again who controls our government - us Cal.... And discrimination leads to tyranny, if the majority is discriminating against a minority, it is exactly what happens. It is the tyranny of discrimination...

That can't happen when you have LIMITED government, something you oppose. That can happen when you have the a massive, powerful, national government, like you support. Not only CAN it happen, it HAS, IN THIS COUNTRY.

And so, you change things - we no longer have slavery - our national government was changed. And then it was able to correct nasty, disgusting local and state governments. Our system of federal government has the ability to change, according to the wishes of the people, it will correct itself over time. Just like it did when it allowed women to vote. It is getting better, not worse Cal. Things happen - people see there needs to be a change - our system allows for that change. Sometimes things change, and then we realize 'gak, what were we thinking' like prohibition. Gone... If you think government is changing in a direction you don't like, and the majority agrees with you, it will correct itself to what the people want. Obviously I believe in the vision of our founding fathers - that "We the people" are in control. I very much believe that to this day - maybe you don't Cal.

We'll have to ask Robert Byrd about that.

Old school, my god, what is he 93? How about someone more contemporary... Jon Kyl for instance?

Do you deny that the federal government had powerful businessmen and politicians helped create a court system that allowed citizens to walk free after killing people or races that the federal government had considered dangerous?

Do you deny that the Wilson administration, the administration many histories say that Obama seems to be emulating, engaged in tyrannical policies that jailed people for dissent, had an office of propaganda, and jailed tens of thousands of Americans for disagreeing with the President?

Do you deny that FDR set up internment camps for Japanese, Germans, and Italian Americans? Do you deny that the commerce policies of FDR were fascistic in nature?

First paragraph - who are you talking about? Jackson and the American Indian perhaps - how about a little clarity? Yes, the feds were all over wiping out our indigenous population... We got better...

Second paragraph - yep, Wilson was a different sort of guy, he was pretty power hungry, and a bit of a conspiracy theorist himself. He didn't break the system did he? We survived, no great hardship because of his policies, the country sailed on... However, next the people soon voted in a series of champions of business to follow Wilson, probably as a reaction to Wilson's progressive policies - Harding, and then Coolidge and than Hoover. Once again - we were able to survive their incredible bad policies, but not until they drove us into a depression.

FDR - Yep, he created interment camps, wrongly. Once again, we don't do that any longer. Did Eisenhower inter Koreans - nope. Did Johnson create camps for Vietnamese that were in this country- nope. Did Carter create camps for Arabs - nope. The people decided, not such a good idea, and since FDR - nothing... Our government 'rights' itself from bad policies on both sides of the fence.

My point?

You're myth of this all knowing, benevolent federal government is DANGEROUS. You're desire to continue to transfer more of our liberties and individual rights to it is DANGEROUS.

My point - that the government is a reflection of the people. As long as slavery was viewed to be necessary to the vitality of the country - our government tolerated it. But, it doesn't any longer. Was our government bad - did it need to be scrapped because it allowed slavery? Thank goodness it wasn't scrapped, it changed, just like it is suppose to, just like the founding fathers envisioned. I actually think we have generations to go under our current system, it is that good. As our viewpoints change - such that women should be allowed to vote, our government can reflect that change.

Was it bad that there was some remenents of institutional racism in the South in the early 20th century. Yes. And was it good that the federal government used it's power under the 14th amendment to address the racism that was being perpetuated by the states. Yes.

But that isn't the point.
This isn't about ENDS, this is about MEANS.
Because if the means don't matter, and the constitution doesn't matter, and individual liberties and property rights don't matter- EVEN when they really, really inconvenience someone or make them uncomfortable, Then nothing matters.

So, if your neighbor decides to create an amusement park in his backyard, keeping it open until late in the evening, and destroying your property value, because we have open property rights, and no zoning restrictions - that is fine by you? Your rights end at his property line. The government creates laws all the time, at local, state and federal levels that ensure that rights are protected. Not just the rights that surround you, but the rights that surround others.

Then the massive, all powerful federal government can do WHAT EVER it wants. There are no limits.

From little things like whether we can have transfats in our cookies, salt shakers on our dinner tables to what temperature we're allowed to set the climate control in our homes.

And we can have whatever blinking fat we want in our cookies-if you want to buy cookies that kill you, please do. But I want to know what is in that cookie- the government can give me that. The government can make sure that tobacco companies don't lie and tell you that cigarettes are good for you (watch old commercials - they knew it was killing people and they still advertised 'healthy menthol cigarettes')...

What laws have been passed that won't allow you to eat 20 cheeseburgers a day Cal - once again you are projecting... those laws don't exist. I asked you for the 'you must allow guns in your store' law - nothing right? This projecting is getting old, and is wrong.

The consitution isn't designed to make this country a utopia. The founding philosophers knew that such a pursuit was impossible.

It's designed to protect the rights of the individual BY limiting the power of the federal government and respecting the individual.

And as Burke said...

The extreme of liberty (which is its abstract perfection, but its real fault) obtains nowhere, nor ought to obtain anywhere; because extremes, as we all know, in every point which relates either to our duties or satisfactions in life, are destructive both to virtue and enjoyment.

We limit our liberty - because if we don't we have anarchy. You weigh the results of limiting a liberty, and the results of allowing the extreme of that liberty...

So I ask-
Am I not a racist because I'm afraid it's against the law?
Would you be a racist or refuse employment to a black person if the CRA had not passed?
Would all of these restaurants sudden just decide to ban minorities if the CRA were ammended (not that anyone is proposing such a thing)?

No.
The federal law has nothing to do with either of our attitudes.

And the law can never change a personal attitude, well, until they start inserting behavior chips...

But, what it can do is say that it is wrong to allow those personal attitudes create tyrannies.

And no, all those restaurants wouldn't ban minorities. But, perhaps in Michigan, a couple would. It could be as simple as the owner doesn't like blacks, to something more complex like the owner thinks that Indians are driving away his wealthy white customers because they wear turbans in his restaurant, and he thinks that the white customer view them as terrorists.

Does this start a chain reaction - does it change the atmosphere of a neighborhood. Will it create a situation where people move out, or people are drawn to behavior like this?

It does change the playing field, and neither you or I Cal can predict how it will end. You hope that it ends by people like this going out of business, but it might not, it might blossom, I don't know, and neither do you.

So, once again do you take the risk? The risk that allowing discrimination against things that people have no control over won't change the face of neighborhoods, of cities, of states... like it did in the south.

I don't think we need to take that risk for an extreme liberty. I can say no to people entering my store who smell bad. I can say no to people who enter my store who wear gang colors. I can say no to people who wear white hoods. I cannot say no to people who are brown.

Do you think that is a liberty that needs to be continued. We don't have the liberty to own slaves (who were thought of as being sub human), I think that is OK. We have grown, we now realize that blacks are not any different than whites or browns or yellows. We changed the constitution to reflect that.

Private citizens and businesses are allowed to do ugly and destructive things.
You aren't forced to be a part of it.

I don't, but it can lead to the tyranny of others. Once again, if you don't understand how discriminatory cycles work cal, then you will not get how allowing something that is 'non choice' to be a factor in how we conduct our lives can snowball.

If the government can do one, you have given it that authority to do all of them and more.

You are wrong - because we control the government. We allow the expansion and contraction of government, we are the government. I know for some reason you cling to this idea that maybe we aren't cal, that it is this huge evil. It isn't - it is us.

You're right, it isn't about racism.
It's about property rights, individual liberty, free association, free speech, and tyrannical federal power.

And tyrannical power at any level Cal - and the Fed has to have enough power to limit that at local and state levels..

A racist can't impose tyranny in a free country.
The government, when it has no limits on it's power, can impose tyranny.

They managed to do so in the south for decades cal - they controlled state government. You need power in the federal government to make sure that doesn't happen again. Now, I think the feds would destroy any state government that allowed segregation and discrimination to become institutionalized again. But, guess what-they didn't in the past, even though they had the 14th to work with. I don't want anything to have a foothold in that door - the door that leads to discrimination and segregation, that includes private business.

You are bastardizing the language, redefining and reapplying words to mean the opposite of what they really mean. The black panthers aren't going to impose a tyranny on me, they don't have the power or institutions.

I'm far more worried about tyrannical abuse from a massive national government than I am from a isolated Southern racists from 1963.

The black panthers can't impose a tyranny on you, they are a minority. However, can the whites impose a tyranny on them - well, they sure did in the past - because they were a majority... You have to continue to protect the weak from the strong, because before you know it you will be the weak, and there is going to be someone stronger.

If you're worried about history repeating itself, look at the people in your own political movement. Don't justify your authoritarian government by sighting some long dead Southern racists. Look at Wilson, FDR, look at the "democratically elected" marxist in Europe and around the world.

And stop dishonestly presenting yourself as a federalist or someone who supports limited government. It's offensive for you to continue to do so. You're not. You know it.

But, as always, the ends justify whatever dishonest, disgusting, foul, means you have to employ, don't they..

My limits regarding government are different than yours cal. I love how people state they are for limited government, but they would love for gay marriage to be banned - that expands the reach of government. They are increasing the scope of government, not limiting it.

You want property rights to be expanded - I want personal rights to be expanded. We vote in a government that will decide according to the wishes of the people. It is called a democracy (well, republic, but we are too big for a true democracy)

I'm not offended that you believe what you do... I'm deeply offended and disgusted by the dishonest means you go about trying to trick people into accepting your falsehoods. If you don't respect the constitution, have the integrity to just say so. If you think that federalism was a mistaken concept of the 18th century, have the integrity to say so. If you think that capitalism and private property are evil institution, have the integrity to say so.

If you're confident in your believes and philosophy, state them clearly and defend them honestly.

What - I am stating this as clearly as I can - I believe in Title II of the CRA. I have defended it honestly. I have used historical reference. It is easy, it is our history I can pull from. I respect the constitution. I also know that our liberty is limited, it has to be otherwise we decay into anarchy. I state very clearly why I think that the privileges and liberties of property stop at discrimination. I am very, very clear cal.

And for that, I have no respect for you on a personal level, because it's not that you're wrong, or that we don't agree. There are people with whom I passionately disagree with but that I have tremendous personal and intellectual respect for. But they say what they mean and mean what they say. But you're doing something that I define as being profoundly evil, your actively engaged in trying to fool people into giving up their freedom to authoritarians like yourself. It doesn't matter if your intentions are good, your methods are twisted and reprehensible.

And thank you once again for taking this to a personal level. You do that when suddenly you realize that people might be listening to me, that they might see that I have a point, and a good, viable, defend-able point at that. I don't have to take this to your level, I don't need to lower myself to call you profoundly evil. I am confident in my argument, I believe in people being able to judge for themselves on the merit of what I say. I do not have to attack you on a personal level Cal. People will judge this not on your discriminatory remarks, but rather on the content of my argument.

But in summary-
if the states were complicate in this terror of racism, and I can sight plenty of federal examples far worse- then the answer is NOT more government.
It's less.
Because a weak institution can't impose a tyranny. The less government, be it state or federal, the less power they have to terrorize us or limit our freedoms.

And I am saying keep the CRA exactly as it is. There are good reasons it is crafted like it is, and now we have 40+ years where minorities in this country aren't subjugated to discrimination and segregation in either the public or private sector. I am proud that our country has the CRA, and anyone that thinks differently is welcome to Dubai.