Racist homeowners refuse to sell to black couple

[JustinTime]

http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/bridgeport-couple-charged_n_677473.html

Now in trouble with the law. What do you think?

[AlexMerced]

Well, they should be able to sell to whoever they want, but people should be able to stand outside with signs protesting as well, which would kill the property value of the whole block, which will then make all the neighbors put pressure on the couple to sell.

That's how the the free market handles bigotry.

[jmdrake]

YouTube - ‪I Don't Care‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ygKHdv19Kk)

[brandon]

Who cares? People can sell to whoever they want. And I think the idea of protesting these people simply because you don't agree with their opinion is asinine. People need to stop being so sensitive. You might as well go protest someone for having bad taste in music.

[Acala]

The marketplace eventually punishes irrationality. Let it do its thing.

[libertybrewcity]

shouldn't be any laws against this but give them hell for being horrible people.

[Light]

WTF I thought people here are about free association? I guess it would be okay for someone to protest outside a homosexual's home because he don't like their lifestyle choice. Oh, wait, that goes against cultural marxism, so he is actually a bad person. Plenty here are still trapped inside the marxist way of thinking.

[JustinTime]

The marketplace eventually punishes irrationality. Let it do its thing.

It could and most likely would, if the government didnt take it upon itself to do so first.

[Mini-Me]

The marketplace eventually punishes irrationality. Let it do its thing.

Pretty much, yeah: By cutting out part of their buyer market, racists are cutting down on demand for their house, which means that on average, they're going to have to sell for less money. Personally, I'd be pretty happy seeing them screw themselves like that. :)

[ChaosControl]

I think they're stupid, but I think it is their land and thus their right to make a dumb decision.

[wizardwatson]

Why would a black couple want to buy anything from a racist against blacks?

[jmdrake]

WTF I thought people here are about free association? I guess it would be okay for someone to protest outside a homosexual's home because he don't like their lifestyle choice. Oh, wait, that goes against cultural marxism, so he is actually a bad person. Plenty here are still trapped inside the marxist way of thinking.

Well the constitution guarantees freedom to peaceably assemble, which means constitutionally speaking people have a right to protest these racists. That said the constitution says nothing about freedom of association. (Read it front to back. It's not there). On the flipside the constitution says nothing about the federal government having any role in what is in fact intrastate commerce. If a state wanted to pass a law to punish people like this, the constitution neither requires nor forbids that. That said.....

YouTube - ‪I Don't Care‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ygKHdv19Kk)

[Light]

Well the constitution guarantees freedom to peaceably assemble, which means constitutionally speaking people have a right to protest these racists.

Since racism is personal belief, could I protest outside a commie professor's home because I don't like his beliefs?

[jmdrake]

Since racism is personal belief, could I protest outside a commie professor's home because I don't like his beliefs?

Yep. And your commie professor has a right to counter protest in front of your house. What he (probably) doesn't have a right to do is fail you because of your personal belief. If you go to a state university that right is protected by the first amendment. If you go to a private university that right is probably protected by contract. It is possible I suppose to go to a private school that has a "We reserve the right to fail you based on your personal beliefs" clause.

[jmdrake]

Why would a black couple want to buy anything from a racist against blacks?

Because they like the house?

[osan]

Well, they should be able to sell to whoever they want,

Grammar police alert: to whomever... just a headup. :)


but people should be able to stand outside with signs protesting as wellShould they? Do you really believe that?


which would kill the property valueThat is questionable, but assuming it is demonstrably true, you appear to be supporting the unjustifiable damaging of property, albeit indirectly. The policy of the sellers is none of anybody's business but theirs.


of the whole block, which will then make all the neighbors put pressure on the couple to sell.Which is overt coercion, i.e. initiation of force.


That's how the the free market handles bigotry.No, it is not. Not even close. The free market "handles" bigotry with the pocketbook. If, for example, a store put a sign in the window saying "we do not serve negroes", those offended by such a policy are well within their rights not to patronize that establishment. Those who are neutral and those who find it agreeable are free to walk in. If there is sufficient reaction to such a policy, the business either changes it or closes its doors. That is how the free market responds (not "handles") that which it finds disagreeable. There is a fundamental difference between positive and negative action. In the case here, positive action is an example of a cure that is worse than the problem is it intended to address.

In a free market - a free society - people mind their own damned business. Period. Respect for the rights of bigots is every bit as crucial as for those of anyone else. Even some people here, with all their talk of liberty and free markets, don't get it. Freedom is an all or nothing deal. We are either free or we are not - there is absolutely NOTHING in between. Hypocrisy has no place where the issue of freedom is concerned.

[osan]

Who cares? People can sell to whoever they want. And I think the idea of protesting these people simply because you don't agree with their opinion is asinine. People need to stop being so sensitive. You might as well go protest someone for having bad taste in music.

+1+

[Acala]

but people should be able to stand outside with signs protesting as well, .

This is only true because government owns the roads. In a truly free market where the roads were privately owned it would be up to the owner of the road whether or not protesters could assemble there.

If I owned the road, the rule would be that you can protest in the road but drivers can try to run you over if they want.

[jmdrake]

Should they? Do you really believe that?


Should they protest or do they have a right to do so? If the question is "should they" that's a personal opinion issue that folks can agree to disagree on. If it's do they have a right to do so, absolutely. As long as the protesters aren't on private property and aren't disturbing the peace. (Being loud, blocking traffic etc.)



That is questionable, but assuming it is demonstrably true, you appear to be supporting the unjustifiable damaging of property, albeit indirectly. The policy of the sellers is none of anybody's business but theirs.


So? There's no general law against damaging property value nor should there be. If someone wrote an op-ed piece in the paper about how these sellers are first class jerks that might damage their property value to. So what? They made the choice to be jerks. Let's say if instead of this being a protest, the buyers took out a full page ad in the paper. The ad might not just discourage blacks from bidding on the house, but some non racists whites as well. If that knocked down their property value would that bother you too? Why? What about personal responsibility for your own actions?



Which is overt coercion, i.e. initiation of force.


No more "force" than the "force" of a bad review on eBay.



No, it is not. Not even close. The free market "handles" bigotry with the pocketbook. If, for example, a store put a sign in the window saying "we do not serve negroes", those offended by such a policy are well within their rights not to patronize that establishment.


The free market works in all kinds of mysterious and wondrous ways. Boycotts and protests are definitely a part of the free market. A critic giving a bad review of your restaurant can hurt your business too. So what? Cry me a river!


Hypocrisy has no place where the issue of freedom is concerned.

Freedom means the government can't force you to do what they want. It doesn't mean private actors can't apply social pressure.

[jmdrake]

This is only true because government owns the roads. In a truly free market where the roads were privately owned it would be up to the owner of the road whether or not protesters could assemble there.

If I owned the road, the rule would be that you can protest in the road but drivers can try to run you over if they want.

Fair enough, as long as I get to shoot at the drivers. ;) Of course I'm assuming Alex meant protesting on the sidewalk and not the road. If you allowed drivers to go up on your sidewalk just to run over protesters, what happens when they run over some innocent bystander? :confused:

[Bruno]

Since racism is personal belief, could I protest outside a commie professor's home because I don't like his beliefs?

Why wouldn't you be able to? :confused:

[Acala]

Fair enough, as long as I get to shoot at the drivers. ;) Of course I'm assuming Alex meant protesting on the sidewalk and not the road. If you allowed drivers to go up on your sidewalk just to run over protesters, what happens when they run over some innocent bystander? :confused:


My road becomes less popular and I go out of business? Or maybe my road becomes MORE popular but my sidewalks become less popular and I have to drop that line of business.

[wizardwatson]

Because they like the house?

My point is, if I found out that so-and-so's store doesn't want to sell to white people, I wouldn't shop there and I'd probably let as many people know about it as I could.

[libertybrewcity]

WTF I thought people here are about free association? I guess it would be okay for someone to protest outside a homosexual's home because he don't like their lifestyle choice. Oh, wait, that goes against cultural marxism, so he is actually a bad person. Plenty here are still trapped inside the marxist way of thinking.

Yea, think what you want, but if you are openly racist you can go to hell. That is not someone I want to be around, and if you don't want to sell your house to a black family, well, I am going to speak out against it.

I said nothing about government control so you can stop your Marxist scare tactic bull crap.

[jmdrake]

My road becomes less popular and I go out of business? Or maybe my road becomes MORE popular but my sidewalks become less popular and I have to drop that line of business.

Does the innocent bystander get to sue you for operating a clearly unsafe sidewalk and violating his property rights? (his body)

[jmdrake]

My point is, if I found out that so-and-so's store doesn't want to sell to white people, I wouldn't shop there and I'd probably let as many people know about it as I could.

Sure. And once upon a time the overwhelming majority of stores in certain areas wouldn't serve black people or only gave them service in degrading ways. And one way to deal with that certainly is a boycott. (As well as protesting which some people oddly feel is "violating rights" :confused:). But probably the ultimate goal would be that whoever this store owner was either changed his ways or ended up losing so much money that he had to sell. In which case you could by from the store again. Same end goal as the folks who call in the big bad feds. Different methodology. Many of the Woolworth's lunch counters had desegregated due to public pressure alone. Folks didn't then say "Ah man! Woolworth's didn't used to serve us. Let's not eat there now that they will."

[Acala]

Does the innocent bystander get to sue you for operating a clearly unsafe sidewalk and violating his property rights? (his body)

Nope. He signed a contract when I agreed to let him use my sidewalk. He specifically accepted the risk of being run over and agreed not to sue. In a free market the courts would enforce the agreement, unlike the nanny state courts of today.

[Elwar]

I do believe that the homeowners were looking out for the best interest of the black couple since the Federal government is giving out housing assistance to blacks...

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/30-00030-000-line-up-589653.html

[WaltM]

that's RETARDED.

I can see if you don't want to rent to certain people, as it would still be your responsibility to maintain, repair later.

But why the HELL would you care who buys it as long as they pay what you want?

Did you promise your dead parents otherwise? Or do you sense that your neighborhood is owed a right to stay a certain percentage a certain skin color?

Either way, sell them the house, let them take the trouble should the neighborhood chose to harass or expel them.

[Acala]

Sure. And once upon a time the overwhelming majority of stores in certain areas wouldn't serve black people or only gave them service in degrading ways. And one way to deal with that certainly is a boycott. (As well as protesting which some people oddly feel is "violating rights" :confused:). But probably the ultimate goal would be that whoever this store owner was either changed his ways or ended up losing so much money that he had to sell. In which case you could by from the store again. Same end goal as the folks who call in the big bad feds. Different methodology. Many of the Woolworth's lunch counters had desegregated due to public pressure alone. Folks didn't then say "Ah man! Woolworth's didn't used to serve us. Let's not eat there now that they will."

The market punishes racism. Consider this:

One of the main functions of the Klan was to intimidate WHITE business owners to not serve blacks. The market inexorably pushes toward rational behavior and punishes ignorance and irrational behavior. The market rewards businesses that cater to customers and punishes businesses that do not. A business that excludes customers for irrational reasons - like skin color - will not be able to compete with businesses that act rationally. Now absent the use of force - by the Klan and by the government - there would probably have been businesses that would have catered to racists by excluding blacks. But over time they would have been eroded and finally have died out after several generations were exposed to the subtle integrative force of the market.

Another example:

In South Africa the apartheid laws were needed by racists to prevent WHITES from hiring blacks or selling them homes. Once again, the racists needed force to counteract the anti-racist pressure of the market.

The free market is relentlessly anti-racist.

[WhiteHaven]

Typical anti white racism. Refuse to sell to blacks yer a racist! Fucking bs. I can't stand the government.Its their own damn choice if they don't want to sell to those 2 whiners they couldn't find a suitable home for themselves and their kids so they took it off the market end of story. If they didn't want to sell to blacks they would have never let them make an offer or they would have said no to their offer.

[Acala]

that's RETARDED.

I can see if you don't want to rent to certain people, as it would still be your responsibility to maintain, repair later.

But why the HELL would you care who buys it as long as they pay what you want?

Did you promise your dead parents otherwise? Or do you sense that your neighborhood is owed a right to stay a certain percentage a certain skin color?

Either way, sell them the house, let them take the trouble should the neighborhood chose to harass or expel them.

Once upon a time in some parts of this country in some neighborhoods it was considered a despicable thing to sell your house to someone not of the predominant neighborhood race.

[libertybrewcity]

The market punishes racism. Consider this:

One of the main functions of the Klan was to intimidate WHITE business owners to not serve blacks. The market inexorably pushes toward rational behavior and punishes ignorance and irrational behavior. The market rewards businesses that cater to customers and punishes businesses that do not. A business that excludes customers for irrational reasons - like skin color - will not be able to compete with businesses that act rationally. Now absent the use of force - by the Klan and by the government - there would probably have been businesses that would have catered to racists by excluding blacks. But over time they would have been eroded and finally have died out after several generations were exposed to the subtle integrative force of the market.

Another example:

In South Africa the apartheid laws were needed by racists to prevent WHITES from hiring blacks or selling them homes. Once again, the racists needed force to counteract the anti-racist pressure of the market.

The free market is relentlessly anti-racist.

only if there are enough anti-racist people to work through the free market to change the way racist people can do business.

[WaltM]

Why would a black couple want to buy anything from a racist against blacks?

the same reason they want to live in a country where people are racist, and work in a place where racists own it, they have no choice and some things are more important.

some just like to make it a big deal, some thing their pride is a right, some know that "stiffing" by not buying isn't helping themselves.

[WaltM]

Once upon a time in some parts of this country in some neighborhoods it was considered a despicable thing to sell your house to someone not of the predominant neighborhood race.

it's still probably true in some places, so what?

the seller can't be held accountable after they're gone, and the buyer will have to deal with the unwelcoming neighbors.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

That said the constitution says nothing about freedom of association. (Read it front to back. It's not there).

Quite untrue. Our rights are Unlimited and Freedom of Association is one of them. Learn, grasshoppa:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- 9th Amendment to the US Constitution

[WaltM]

Typical anti white racism. Refuse to sell to blacks yer a racist! Fucking bs. I can't stand the government.Its their own damn choice if they don't want to sell to those 2 whiners they couldn't find a suitable home for themselves and their kids so they took it off the market end of story. If they didn't want to sell to blacks they would have never let them make an offer or they would have said no to their offer.

and what if they find out later that lower offers are considered?

you can't hide that for much long, you can discriminate on price, and keep changing your mind, just don't get caught so obvious about it.

[MelissaWV]

In this market, they can afford to be this picky? *shrugs* It's going to bite them in the ass, to be sure, but I whole-heartedly support their right to transact business with "whites only" if they want to.

As far as protesting, if the protest or anything associated with it is infringing on the homeowners or their neighbors, it's not cool. If I say I'm not selling my house to anyone over the age of 40, and a bunch of old folks (and middle aged, for that matter) show up on my lawn, they're still trespassing. If they're "only" on the sidewalk and yelling and wandering around and making it next to impossible to use the sidewalk and driveways, that's a problem, too. Now, if my neighbor is upset by my not selling my house to a qualified "black couple," then that neighbor can volunteer their property to stage a protest, or even put up a big sign with an arrow pointing at my house that says "RACISTS" or something along those lines. Would they be wrong?

None of this should be enforced by law. That's moronic in so many ways it's hard to keep count.

[WaltM]

Well the constitution guarantees freedom to peaceably assemble


It does? Where and how?



, which means constitutionally speaking people have a right to protest these racists.


what are the limits of protesting?



That said the constitution says nothing about freedom of association.


it also says nothing about raping women, molesting children, or privacy.




(Read it front to back. It's not there).


I did, didn't see it, you're right.

It's good to know I'm not the only person who believes a person only has rights that are Stated in the 210 year old piece of paper, and no more.



On the flipside the constitution says nothing about the federal government having any role in what is in fact intrastate commerce. If a state wanted to pass a law to punish people like this, the constitution neither requires nor forbids that. That said.....


So if a State wanted to pass a law forbidding ownership of property, the federal government cannot protect property under its own definitions?

[Acala]

only if there are enough anti-racist people to work through the free market to change the way racist people can do business.

Not true.

Say you and I operate competing restaurants and you exclude blacks and I don't. My guaranteed customer base consists of all blacks and all whites who oppose racism. Your guaranteed customer base consists only of hard-core racists. We compete for those who don't care one way or the other. Unless hard-core racists outnumber all blacks and all anti-racists, I win. The market will bless my business and slowly rot yours. And every day my business operates, it spreads racial tolerance. This is exactly why the Klan had to prevent racial integration.

[Acala]

it's still probably true in some places, so what?

the seller can't be held accountable after they're gone, and the buyer will have to deal with the unwelcoming neighbors.

Just making a historical observation.

[WaltM]

In this market, they can afford to be this picky? *shrugs* It's going to bite them in the ass, to be sure, but I whole-heartedly support their right to transact business with "whites only" if they want to.


I support their right, but I think choosing the buyer is hardly one that's enjoyable.






As far as protesting, if the protest or anything associated with it is infringing on the homeowners or their neighbors, it's not cool.


I wonder what rights a neighbor has? Right to be free from seeing people they don't like? Or just hearing noises?




If I say I'm not selling my house to anyone over the age of 40, and a bunch of old folks (and middle aged, for that matter) show up on my lawn, they're still trespassing.


Yeah, but not if they stood right in front and not ON.

And, there ARE closed gate retirement communities that not only forbid OWNING, BUT ALSO LIVING of people under 50.

The understanding is that, the community is reserved for retired and old people, for safety, calmness, cars, income....lifestyle basically.



If they're "only" on the sidewalk and yelling and wandering around and making it next to impossible to use the sidewalk and driveways, that's a problem, too.


But if they made it possible, just uncomfortable to use?




Now, if my neighbor is upset by my not selling my house to a qualified "black couple," then that neighbor can volunteer their property to stage a protest, or even put up a big sign with an arrow pointing at my house that says "RACISTS" or something along those lines. Would they be wrong?


No, I don't think so.

Unless maybe they know that would lead to you being harassed or harmed and they purposesly assisted criminal activity.



None of this should be enforced by law. That's moronic in so many ways it's hard to keep count.

yep. moronic a person would even care who he's selling to when he can take the money and run.

[WaltM]

Not true.

Say you and I operate competing restaurants and you exclude blacks and I don't. My guaranteed customer base consists of all blacks and all whites who oppose racism.


Or people who care more about the food, the price than whether a person is racist.




Your guaranteed customer base consists only of hard-core racists.



Or people who care more about the food, the price than whether a person is racist.




We compete for those who don't care one way or the other. Unless hard-core racists outnumber all blacks and all anti-racists, I win. The market will bless my business and slowly rot yours. And every day my business operates, it spreads racial tolerance. This is exactly why the Klan had to prevent racial integration.

so then, you better be able to afford the competition by either quality food, service or price. Otherwise some people might not let racism blindsight them.

The market can work the other way too, depending on preference.

[heavenlyboy34]

The market punishes racism. Consider this:

One of the main functions of the Klan was to intimidate WHITE business owners to not serve blacks. The market inexorably pushes toward rational behavior and punishes ignorance and irrational behavior. The market rewards businesses that cater to customers and punishes businesses that do not. A business that excludes customers for irrational reasons - like skin color - will not be able to compete with businesses that act rationally. Now absent the use of force - by the Klan and by the government - there would probably have been businesses that would have catered to racists by excluding blacks. But over time they would have been eroded and finally have died out after several generations were exposed to the subtle integrative force of the market.

Another example:

In South Africa the apartheid laws were needed by racists to prevent WHITES from hiring blacks or selling them homes. Once again, the racists needed force to counteract the anti-racist pressure of the market.

The free market is relentlessly anti-racist.

This post is full to the brim with win. :cool::D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/bridgeport-couple-charged_n_677473.html

Now in trouble with the law. What do you think?

I think we should quit using the "R" word. There exists no such person as a racist today just as there never existed such a person as a "N" igger. Doing away with the term "R" acist will cause people to think. Then we will stop all this stupid thinking and start sleeping with each other.
In the end, I think the evidence is over whelming that everyone of every race, creed, and color is pretty much sleeping with everyone of every race, creed and color.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think we should quit using the "R" word. There exists no such person as a racist today just as there never existed such a person as a "N" igger. Doing away with the term "R" acist will cause people to think. Then we will stop all this stupid thinking and start sleeping with each other.
In the end, I think the evidence is over whelming that everyone of every race, creed, and color is pretty much sleeping with everyone of every race, creed and color.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The market punishes racism. Consider this:

One of the main functions of the Klan was to intimidate WHITE business owners to not serve blacks. The market inexorably pushes toward rational behavior and punishes ignorance and irrational behavior. The market rewards businesses that cater to customers and punishes businesses that do not. A business that excludes customers for irrational reasons - like skin color - will not be able to compete with businesses that act rationally. Now absent the use of force - by the Klan and by the government - there would probably have been businesses that would have catered to racists by excluding blacks. But over time they would have been eroded and finally have died out after several generations were exposed to the subtle integrative force of the market.

Another example:

In South Africa the apartheid laws were needed by racists to prevent WHITES from hiring blacks or selling them homes. Once again, the racists needed force to counteract the anti-racist pressure of the market.

The free market is relentlessly anti-racist.

According to the laws of American Literature, when taking away the apartheid laws of South Africa and the Klan of the south, one is only left with the non-prejudice of the Puritans of the Northeast, the worshipping of witchcraft, the dancing naked around a maypole, and the eating of mincemeat pie!

[JustinTime]

and what if they find out later that lower offers are considered?

you can't hide that for much long, you can discriminate on price, and keep changing your mind, just don't get caught so obvious about it.

Actually, IMO, they should be able to discriminate with their own property right out in the open. They can face consequences from individuals who choose to protest in their front yard, refuse to do business with them, etc, but nothing from government at all.

[idirtify]

Who cares? People can sell to whoever they want. And I think the idea of protesting these people simply because you don't agree with their opinion is asinine. People need to stop being so sensitive. You might as well go protest someone for having bad taste in music.

So in a more free/perfect world: the seller could legally refuse to sell, the protesters could protest the refusal, the critics of the protest could protest the protesters, and we LF members would still manage to disagree with all of them from the comfort of our homes. Who would have ever thought that the face of real freedom would be MASS DISAGREEMENT?

:)

[WaltM]

Actually, IMO, they should be able to discriminate with their own property right out in the open. They can face consequences from individuals who choose to protest in their front yard, refuse to do business with them, etc, but nothing from government at all.

thats what i said, they should be allowed that

but i meant to say, its easy to catch today (as it is technically illegal)

and regardless, its stupid on its face for purposes of selling

[cindy25]

they might have had a valid personal or economic interest in refusing.

not so much now days, but in the 60s and 70s selling to a black family would cause the value of neighboring property drop; if they owned other homes in the area, or were close to their neighbors then selling to whites only makes economic sense. it shouldn't, some day it won't but it does.

[jmdrake]

Quite untrue. Our rights are Unlimited and Freedom of Association is one of them. Learn, grasshoppa:


:rolleyes: No they're not caterpillar. I bet your going to misinterpret the 9th amendment by ignoring the 10th.



- 9th Amendment to the US Constitution

Yep. Right on queue. Here's the 10th amendment you ignored.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Just because because a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean the states can't restrict it. It simply means the federal government can't unless it specifically has the enumerated power to do so. People hue and cry about "property rights". Well states had the power to restrict your property rights long before there was a civil rights act. For example, way back to the beginning of the republic states could through the common law grant the general public an "easement" to your property just because you didn't stop someone from open and adversely using it multiple times. There's nothing in the constitution to prevent this. But nothing in the constitution gives the federal governmentt that authority.

Bottom line, even though that fact that a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that it must exist just either. The 9th amendment only means the federal government isn't allowed to grant itself new powers to restrict rights out of thin air. The whole abortion mess came from the Supreme Court making up rights. If a state wanted to pass a law restricting some made up right not listed in the federal constitution or state constitution there's nothing to stop it.

[WaltM]

they might have had a valid personal or economic interest in refusing.


I don't think they need a valid or justifiable one.

But I can't imagine how that can even be, if the offer is money.

Why do you care, when you can take the money and walk?

(please dont tell me they think it's more responsible to sell to white people because they dont want blacks to be foreclosed on)



not so much now days, but in the 60s and 70s selling to a black family would cause the value of neighboring property drop;


it still would, and vice versa, in some areas.



if they owned other homes in the area, or were close to their neighbors then selling to whites only makes economic sense. it shouldn't, some day it won't but it does.

if that's the case, they shouldn't even put it on the market.

they should sell it to a neighbor and let them deal with it.

Now, I don't think there's anything wrong or illegal with "I dont want to sell you because I dont like blacks" or "I want to charge more because you're black", but I just don't see any reason anybody would care, AT ALL.

if they think blacks will drop the property value, they should raise the price so only rich blacks can buy it. If one house can ruin an area, it can also raise an area.

[WaltM]

:rolleyes: No they're not caterpillar. I bet your going to misinterpret the 9th amendment by ignoring the 10th.

Yep. Right on queue. Here's the 10th amendment you ignored.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Just because because a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean the states can't restrict it.


First of all, what's with the OR?

Who comes first? The People or the States?

So, as long as a right isn't enumerated a State is authorized to restrict it?



It simply means the federal government can't unless it specifically has the enumerated power to do so. People hue and cry about "property rights". Well states had the power to restrict your property rights long before there was a civil rights act. For example, way back to the beginning of the republic states could through the common law grant the general public an "easement" to your property just because you didn't stop someone from open and adversely using it multiple times. There's nothing in the constitution to prevent this. But nothing in the constitution gives the federal governmentt that authority.


So by this reasoning, any state can restrict property, and then authorize the federal government to act on their behalf for whatever they've enabled.




Bottom line, even though that fact that a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist


Why not?

Why does or should a person have any rights that aren't written on paper?



, that doesn't mean that it must exist just either.


I'm leaning towards it doesn't exist. Can you tell me why I'm wrong?



The 9th amendment only means the federal government isn't allowed to grant itself new powers to restrict rights out of thin air. The whole abortion mess came from the Supreme Court making up rights.

The Supreme Court is authorized to interpret the Constitution, which is de facto law and rights creation, is it not?

The Supreme Court CAN, in theory, and effect say "The first amendment really means a person can murder as long as it's part of his religion" right?

[jmdrake]

Really. It's a dumb thread. The only think truly worth noting is that the federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction in the matter. But I care no more about the "right" of some racist white owner to be stupid and not sell to the highest bidder than I care about the "right" of some black couple to by the home of a racist. And in this particular case it sounds like the white couple violated the terms of their initial agreement anyway. The right of contract anyway? I can't tell from the description if the black couple had already paid earnest money. If so that's a contract regardless of any federal housing statute. And yeah, if it wasn't for the federal law they probably would have made it clear in the listing that "only whites need to apply". But if they care so much about being racist jerks they could have done due diligence before accepting the bid to find out the "complexion" of the highest bid. Their fault for being stupid on top of being racist.

[libertybrewcity]

Typical anti white racism. Refuse to sell to blacks yer a racist! Fucking bs. I can't stand the government.Its their own damn choice if they don't want to sell to those 2 whiners they couldn't find a suitable home for themselves and their kids so they took it off the market end of story. If they didn't want to sell to blacks they would have never let them make an offer or they would have said no to their offer.

oh whatever. typical white protectionism. it is clearly racist if you refuse to sell to a black family based on the fact they are a black family.

they can sell to whoever they want but if they are clearly denying a sale based on race, that is called racist.

[WaltM]

Really. It's a dumb thread. The only think truly worth noting is that the federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction in the matter.


who disagreed?



But I care no more about the "right" of some racist white owner to be stupid and not sell to the highest bidder than I care about the "right" of some black couple to by the home of a racist.


yeah, which is why I don't believe in rights.



And in this particular case it sounds like the white couple violated the terms of their initial agreement anyway. The right of contract anyway? I can't tell from the description if the black couple had already paid earnest money.


good questions, too bad people here don't want the details.




If so that's a contract regardless of any federal housing statute. And yeah, if it wasn't for the federal law they probably would have made it clear in the listing that "only whites need to apply". But if they care so much about being racist jerks they could have done due diligence before accepting the bid to find out the "complexion" of the highest bid. Their fault for being stupid on top of being racist.

yeah, that's essentially what it is. being stupid.

[WaltM]

oh whatever. typical white protectionism. it is clearly racist if you refuse to sell to a black family based on the fact they are a black family.

they can sell to whoever they want but if they are clearly denying a sale based on race, that is called racist.

I can't wait until it's criminal to tell your child whom they can't marry.

[jmdrake]

First of all, what's with the OR?

Who comes first? The People or the States?

So, as long as a right isn't enumerated a State is authorized to restrict it?


Basically. Look at the prohibition of alcohol for example. When the federal government was acting with in its proper boundaries it couldn't restrict the sale of alcohol, so the temperance movement needed the 18th amendment. But states could prohibit alcohol. Even today you have "dry counties" and "wet counties". Drinking alcohol isn't an enumerated right. On the flip side a state law banning any newspaper that criticized the governor would be struck down.



So by this reasoning, any state can restrict property, and then authorize the federal government to act on their behalf for whatever they've enabled.


I'm not following you. First what would even be the point of that? The states collectively have more enforcement officers than the federal government. Secondly, states restrict property all of the time. Zoning laws for instance. Can you think of any example where or local government passed an zoning law and then asked the feds to enforce it? Third I've never heard of a "state to federal delegation doctrine" on anything. But even if that did happen, why would it even matter? In the grand scheme of things if your property right has been restricted anyway, does it matter if it's a local sheriff or a federal agent that enforces the restriction? It matters who passes it because you have a better chance fighting city hall then you do the federal government.




Why not?

Why does or should a person have any rights that aren't written on paper?

I'm leaning towards it doesn't exist. Can you tell me why I'm wrong?


Ummm....I'm not the one arguing for an unenumerated right. That said there are common law rights. Ok, they're written in court decisions but still.



The Supreme Court is authorized to interpret the Constitution, which is de facto law and rights creation, is it not?

The Supreme Court CAN, in theory, and effect say "The first amendment really means a person can murder as long as it's part of his religion" right?

The Supreme Court authorized itself to interpret the constitution. Kind of circular reasoning. ;) The current court view on religion is that you have and unfettered right of your religious belief but not an unfettered right of action based on your belief. So you can't murder someone just because your religion says so. You can believe someone deserves death and even tell others of your belief as long as you aren't directing them to carry out the murder. Its the same reasoning by which the court should overturn that state school's decision to try to force that Christian counseling student to change her views about homosexuality. That is if the court follows its own precedence.

But back to the subject at hand, if we accept that whatever the court has already said is constitutional really is, then the whole discussion about this racist couple is moot. The court has already made it clear that the federal government can do all sorts of things in the name of "interstate commerce" even when there is no real interstate transaction involved. But the court has revisited the commerce clause somewhat in recent years and started to reverse itself. It came close to totally undoing the broad definition of the commerce clause in Gonzales v. Raich, but Scalia apparently couldn't bear the death of the federal drug war.

Side note, the only reason the court gave a broad definition of the commerce clause in the first place is because FDR bullied it my threatening to increase the number of justices just so he could stack the court with people who would agree with him.

[WaltM]

Basically. Look at the prohibition of alcohol for example. When the federal government was acting with in its proper boundaries it couldn't restrict the sale of alcohol, so the temperance movement needed the 18th amendment. But states could prohibit alcohol. Even today you have "dry counties" and "wet counties". Drinking alcohol isn't an enumerated right. On the flip side a state law banning any newspaper that criticized the governor would be struck down.


Where does "or the people" come in?

I understand States have rights to make laws, but what does "or the people" mean? That they come only last after federal and state failed to present what's legal?



I'm not following you. First what would even be the point of that?


Save time? Get help?



The states collectively have more enforcement officers than the federal government.


even today?



Secondly, states restrict property all of the time. Zoning laws for instance. Can you think of any example where or local government passed an zoning law and then asked the feds to enforce it?

No. I can't.

But has it ever happened when a local ordinance or state law was challenged in a federal court (to be overturned , overridden)



Third I've never heard of a "state to federal delegation doctrine" on anything. But even if that did happen, why would it even matter?


it would effectively make "federal government can't do this" arguments useless.



In the grand scheme of things if your property right has been restricted anyway, does it matter if it's a local sheriff or a federal agent that enforces the restriction?


no, that's my point. Which is why I find it funny people argue these things at all.



It matters who passes it because you have a better chance fighting city hall then you do the federal government.


fair enough.






Ummm....I'm not the one arguing for an unenumerated right. That said there are common law rights. Ok, they're written in court decisions but still.


thanks.



The Supreme Court authorized itself to interpret the constitution.


No, the Constitution authorized itself to be the Constitution.

And let the Supreme Court interpret it. (and in today's context, it would be the new circular starting point)



Kind of circular reasoning. ;) And certainly the Supreme Court has made some whacky decisions. The current court view on religion is that you have and unfettered right of your religious belief but not an unfettered right of action based on your belief.


I see.




So you can't murder someone just because your religion says so. You can believe someone deserves death and even tell others of your belief as long as you aren't directing them to carry out the murder. Its the same reasoning by which the court should overturn that schools decision to try to force that Christian counseling student to change her views about homosexuality. That is if the court follows its own precedence.

But back to the subject at hand, if we accept that whatever the court has already said is constitutional really is, then the whole discussion about this racist couple is moot.


I agree.

I find it funny why people want it every possible way, never sticking to a consistent set of rules when arguing this stuff.



The court has already made it clear that the federal government can do all sorts of things in the name of "interstate commerce" even when there is no real interstate transaction involved. But the court has revisited the commerce clause somewhat in recent years and started to reverse itself.

Side note, the only reason the court gave a broad definition of the commerce clause in the first place is because FDR bullied it my threatening to increase the number of justices just so he could stack the court with people who would agree with him.

ha. under what authority or law is a President allowed to do so?

[BlackTerrel]

The good news is that this sort of thing is now so rare that it makes the news when it does happen.

[WaltM]

The good news is that this sort of thing is now so rare that it makes the news when it does happen.

yep.

and it's hilarious how people here treat news stories like its the norm.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Once upon a time in some parts of this country in some neighborhoods it was considered a despicable thing to sell your house to someone not of the predominant neighborhood race.

In Africa, one was either a master, a slave, or an untouchable. As this process worked quite peacefully with the slaves serving their masters, both the slaves and their masters together rejected the outcaste untouchables. The result was to sell into slavery to the Portuguese 12 worthless souls for the sum total of a horse. After these worthless people arrived in the United States, they were then sold for a price greater than 1/12th of a horse.
When African Americans celebrate their culture, they are celebrating the tyranny that treated them worst than the so-called people who bought them and, after fighting a war over it, then helped set them free.

[jmdrake]

Where does "or the people" come in?

I understand States have rights to make laws, but what does "or the people" mean? That they come only last after federal and state failed to present what's legal?


This is my understanding. (It could be wrong). Since the primary goal of the constitution was to enumerate (and thus limit) the power of the federal government, the federal government couldn't arbitrarily pass some law restricting some unenumerated right. So if a right is unenumerated, and if the state hasn't restricted that right or if the state has enumerated that right in its own constitution, then the person has that right. Again alcohol is the easiest example. That right isn't enumerated in the U.S. constitution. If your state hasn't restricted that right then you have it because the federal government has no power to take it away. (At least in theory).



Save time? Get help?


Ok.



even today?


Well I suppose it depends if we are including the military and national guard as enforcement agents in violation of posse comitatus. But I think there are more police, sheriffs, state troopers etc. than FBI, treasury agents etc. I could be way off on that guess though.




But has it ever happened when a local ordinance or state law was challenged in a federal court (to be overturned , overridden)


Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

The Supreme Court struck down an ordinance barring the sacrificial killing of animals as an unconstitutional restriction on the free exercise of religion. And I know I said that earlier that the court upheld all religious beliefs but not all religious acts and killing an animal is certainly an act. But the problem with the law was that it specifically targeted religion. Had the law banned all killing of animals it might have been upheld. (First amendment free exercise jurisprudence gets really twisted really fast.)



it would effectively make "federal government can't do this" arguments useless.


Yes. I suppose so. But then the federal action is limited to the states that really want it. Take drug laws for instance. If DEA agents were only allowed to operated in states that wanted drug laws I don't see a problem with that other than spending. But maybe I'm missing something.




no, that's my point. Which is why I find it funny people argue these things at all.


Oh. Ok.




No, the Constitution authorized itself to be the Constitution.

And let the Supreme Court interpret it. (and in today's context, it would be the new circular starting point)


Except the constitution never specifically said the Supreme Court should be its interpreter. That came later in Maubury v. Madison.




I agree.

I find it funny why people want it every possible way, never sticking to a consistent set of rules when arguing this stuff.


Ok. Well I'm looking at it from the statepoint of strong versus weak precedence. Strong precedence is backed up by the text and stays solid throughout the years. The current commerce clause precedence stretches the text and has been successfully attacked 2 out of 3 times in the past several years. I think of most people on the left who went gaga over Rands words about the CRA realized this, they'd have agreed that it should have initially been reworded. Who wants a law that might be overturned?




ha. under what authority or law is a President allowed to do so?

Article II section 2 gives the president the power to appoint justices to the supreme court. But nowhere in the constitution does it say how many justices can be on the court. Traditionally it has been 9 (I forget how old of a tradition that has been), but that's not set in stone. Technically Obama could double the size of the current supreme court if the senate would go along with him.

Anyway, this has been a pleasant conversation.

[WaltM]

Article II section 2 gives the president the power to appoint justices to the supreme court. But nowhere in the constitution does it say how many justices can be on the court. Traditionally it has been 9 (I forget how old of a tradition that has been), but that's not set in stone. Technically Obama could double the size of the current supreme court if the senate would go along with him.

Anyway, this has been a pleasant conversation.

Ok, thanks!

NOW I feel like an idiot, I really thought 9 was in some law.

Then it's amazing how Presidents have never actually done it!

[WaltM]

Well I suppose it depends if we are including the military and national guard as enforcement agents in violation of posse comitatus. But I think there are more police, sheriffs, state troopers etc. than FBI, treasury agents etc. I could be way off on that guess though.


I think you are right.

However, would posse comitatus be relevant if States authorized and asked for the assistance of them?

[libertybrewcity]

I can't wait until it's criminal to tell your child whom they can't marry.

you clearly just post anything without reading or thinking. If you actually read the post i never mentioned anything about government or marriage.

I was saying that it is racist to deny someone a sale solely based on race.

Is that not racism? It is.

Maybe say something thoughtful next time.

[low preference guy]

Maybe say something thoughtful next time.

it's WaltM, don't hold your breath.

[libertybrewcity]

yep.

and it's hilarious how people here treat news stories like its the norm.

even if it's not the norm, racism is racism and it is still wrong.

[libertybrewcity]

it's WaltM, don't hold your breath.

yea, really. reeks of trolling...

[raistlinkishtar]

An offer was made for a piece of private property and was not accepted. I'm not sure how skin color matters one iota. This is a case of government abuse against a private citizen and nothing more.

[Stary Hickory]

It is perfectly fine to associate voluntarily based on race, smell, feet size, gender, or any thing else so can come up with. And it is perfectly fine for people to think that you are ignorant and irrational for doing so.

They made the news now everyone knows that are not selling because they are racist. Now we can all deal with them accordingly. However it is their property and they can do whatever they like with it.

[jmdrake]

Ok, thanks!

NOW I feel like an idiot, I really thought 9 was in some law.

Then it's amazing how Presidents have never actually done it!

Such a move would not be without political risk. Let's say Obama tried that. Can you imagine even one republican voting for cloture to pack the court with extra votes? That would also be a great rallying cry of republicans who already seem poised to retake the house and senate. Besides, there's already enough bad supreme court precedence for the president and congress to do almost anything they want anyway. (Warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, bailouts to private business, going to war without a proper declaration of war, etc). The court might strike down Obamacare and that might temp him to try something like this, but by that time he probably won't have a majority in the senate anyway.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Their house, they can sell it to who they want.

For that matter, why would I want to give my money to a racist. :confused:

[JackieDan]

Well, they should be able to sell to whoever they want, but people should be able to stand outside with signs protesting as well, which would kill the property value of the whole block, which will then make all the neighbors put pressure on the couple to sell.

That's how the the free market handles bigotry.

word!

[WaltM]

Such a move would not be without political risk. Let's say Obama tried that. Can you imagine even one republican voting for cloture to pack the court with extra votes? That would also be a great rallying cry of republicans who already seem poised to retake the house and senate. Besides, there's already enough bad supreme court precedence for the president and congress to do almost anything they want anyway. (Warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, bailouts to private business, going to war without a proper declaration of war, etc). The court might strike down Obamacare and that might temp him to try something like this, but by that time he probably won't have a majority in the senate anyway.

Understood.

In contrast, he can remove them to be 5, or 3, so it'll be easier to get things done if they all agree with each other.

[WaltM]

you clearly just post anything without reading or thinking. If you actually read the post i never mentioned anything about government or marriage.

I was saying that it is racist to deny someone a sale solely based on race.

Is that not racism? It is.

Maybe say something thoughtful next time.

I agree, it is.

So what's wrong with what I said?

[WaltM]

An offer was made for a piece of private property and was not accepted. I'm not sure how skin color matters one iota. This is a case of government abuse against a private citizen and nothing more.

skin color would be the cause if it can be shown they accepted lower offers of a different skin color. Or vindicated if they accepted another offer from a black buyer.

[WaltM]

It is perfectly fine to associate voluntarily based on race, smell, feet size, gender, or any thing else so can come up with. And it is perfectly fine for people to think that you are ignorant and irrational for doing so.

They made the news now everyone knows that are not selling because they are racist. Now we can all deal with them accordingly. However it is their property and they can do whatever they like with it.

they certainly can, but they're pretty stupid for caring as they can take the money and walk away, and it would no longer be their concern.

[jmdrake]

Understood.

In contrast, he can remove them to be 5, or 3, so it'll be easier to get things done if they all agree with each other.

He can't remove justices. The congress could impeach them though. And he doesn't have to replace impeached / retiring / dead justices. But if you've got a "vacancy" (since everyone is conditioned to believe there's supposed to be 9) the natural inclination for the president is to fill the "vacancy" with someone willing to rubberstamp his agenda like Elana "the government can make you eat 3 veggies if it wants to" Kagan.

YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo)

[AlexMerced]

This is only true because government owns the roads. In a truly free market where the roads were privately owned it would be up to the owner of the road whether or not protesters could assemble there.

If I owned the road, the rule would be that you can protest in the road but drivers can try to run you over if they want.

agreed

[WaltM]

He can't remove justices. The congress could impeach them though. And he doesn't have to replace impeached / retiring / dead justices. But if you've got a "vacancy" (since everyone is conditioned to believe there's supposed to be 9) the natural inclination for the president is to fill the "vacancy" with someone willing to rubberstamp his agenda like Elana "the government can make you eat 3 veggies if it wants to" Kagan.

YouTube - Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo)

Thanks.

[raistlinkishtar]

skin color would be the cause if it can be shown they accepted lower offers of a different skin color. Or vindicated if they accepted another offer from a black buyer.

Whatever the cause of their decision, it's no business of ours. The only business we have is defending their right to not to be bullied by the government.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Their house, they can sell it to who they want.

For that matter, why would I want to give my money to a racist. :confused:

It is so hard to overcome and live in realtime. Just because the newspapers and television stations utilize the "R" acist terms of "R" acist and "R" acism doesn't mean that they aren't using the equivalent of the word "N" igger. As a writer and an intellectual myself, I like to think that I am superior to the writers who work in these shallow commercial media companies.:p In the universities, these people are thought of as the "N"s of the writing profession. Am I a "R" acist for claiming this? No.
In other words, I understand the true spirit of Martin Luther King. Yes, his death has more meaning than just giving a lot of kids a holiday and the opportunity to get a day off from school.
As hard as it may be for many to believe, African Americans were never the savages who danced naked around a fire. No, this was a condition brought on by an unacceptable relationship happening not just within the continent of Africa, but all over the world.
There is more to the history of tyranny than the relationship between the master and slave classes as hidden within and ignored were the untouchable outcastes rejected by master and slave alike.

[osan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2836615#post2836615)
Should they? Do you really believe that?

Should they protest or do they have a right to do so? If the question is "should they" that's a personal opinion issue that folks can agree to disagree on. If it's do they have a right to do so, absolutely. As long as the protesters aren't on private property and aren't disturbing the peace. (Being loud, blocking traffic etc.)

We do not disagree on this.


Quote:
That is questionable, but assuming it is demonstrably true, you appear to be supporting the unjustifiable damaging of property, albeit indirectly. The policy of the sellers is none of anybody's business but theirs.
So? There's no general law against damaging property value nor should there be. If someone wrote an op-ed piece in the paper about how these sellers are first class jerks that might damage their property value to. So what? They made the choice to be jerks. Let's say if instead of this being a protest, the buyers took out a full page ad in the paper. The ad might not just discourage blacks from bidding on the house, but some non racists whites as well. If that knocked down their property value would that bother you too? Why? What about personal responsibility for your own actions?

I didn't write illegal destruction of property, but unjustifiable. As to the owners being "jerks", that is also a matter of perspective. There is no absolute judgment on these sorts of things.


Quote:
Which is overt coercion, i.e. initiation of force.
No more "force" than the "force" of a bad review on eBay.

Point taken.




Quote:
Hypocrisy has no place where the issue of freedom is concerned.
Freedom means the government can't force you to do what they want. It doesn't mean private actors can't apply social pressure.

Freedom means NOBODY can force you to what they want.