Clear up the Civil Rights issue from today..

[i2ambler]

I watched the Meet the Press today, and I apologize if this has been brought up before. i thought the interview was fair, and Dr. Paul did well. However, Im not so sure about the Civil Rights / Segregation thing. Dr. Paul basically stated that if you own a place, you have the right serve whoever you want (i.e. property rights). While I believe in that to a degree - in abstract, Does not everyone agree that the banning of racial/sexual discrimination from places of business is a good thing? I personally think that in this case, its quite fine to have this in place. Do we really want 'Whites Only' places of business still?

I realize much of what he stumps is based on idealogy, however, I would really love for him to begin moving from idealogy to solid facts. People love solid, undeniable staticstics. Can someone pleas clear these issues up for me? I am not a 'troll' and do not appreciate being labeled one whenever I have a valid question, or difference of opinion.

[DRV45N05]

I watched the Meet the Press today, and I apologize if this has been brought up before. i thought the interview was fair, and Dr. Paul did well. However, Im not so sure about the Civil Rights / Segregation thing. Dr. Paul basically stated that if you own a place, you have the right serve whoever you want (i.e. property rights). While I believe in that to a degree - in abstract, Does not everyone agree that the banning of racial/sexual discrimination from places of business is a good thing? I personally think that in this case, its quite fine to have this in place. Do we really want 'Whites Only' places of business still?

I realize much of what he stumps is based on idealogy, however, I would really love for him to begin moving from idealogy to solid facts. People love solid, undeniable staticstics. Can someone pleas clear these issues up for me? I am not a 'troll' and do not appreciate being labeled one whenever I have a valid question, or difference of opinion.

In today's world, it would be utterly stupid to bar those of other races and sexualities from service at your business. Society is by leaps and bounds more tolerant than it was in the 1960s, and if an owner did this, they would lose business to other firms and get quashed. Not to mention the backlash that would occur in local media.

[i2ambler]

In today's world, it would be utterly stupid to bar those of other races and sexualities from service at your business. Society is by leaps and bounds more tolerant than it was in the 1960s, and if an owner did this, they would lose business to other firms and get quashed. Not to mention the backlash that would occur in local media.


I understand that.. but i suppose its just a hypothetical 'what if' situation. What IF the federal government never stepped in. Would it have been better, or worse? One think I do LOVE about Ron Paul - his ideas get people THINKING.. whether they agree or disagree with him. Would we even be having these kinds of conversations if he was not in the race? heck no.

[Bilgefisher]

You have a valid argument. I disagree, but not because I want whites only business or anything else, I think a business owner should have the right to refuse business to anyone, especially if it affects his business.

I bring up the gentlemen refusing service to those who don't order in English. You can't expect him to know every language out there. Thats just my opinion.

[ItDoesNotStopWithRonPaul]

I agree with Ron Paul. We have rights as INDIVIDUALS, and individuals own property. They should have the right to accept or refuse business from anyone. Most people just want business, and don't want to make a political statement with every customer. Plus, like Dr. Paul brought up, why should the government have the right to FORCE people into your neighborhood through bussing and HUD programs?

[throughnothing]

I dont completely agree with you. I feel that any business owner today should be able to open a "whites only" establisment, in fact, id like to see someone try. This would fail miserably, I know I would never go there, and neither would most other people. The point is, if society really wants to be free of racism it will be, the government cannot force that on us in private property. Thoughts?

[Bilgefisher]

I dont completely agree with you. I feel that any business owner today should be able to open a "whites only" establisment, in fact, id like to see someone try. This would fail miserably, I know I would never go there, and neither would most other people. The point is, if society really wants to be free of racism it will be, the government cannot force that on us in private property. Thoughts?

Very good point, in fact I think by forcing people to "not be racist" it can be counterproductive, like a rebelling teen. It does get down to morality issues, I for one don't wish to have the govt define all my morals.

[CMoore]

You raise an interesting question and a complicated one. It is probably not an accurate picture to suggest that without the Civil Rights Act of 1964 merchants would still be refusing service to "colored people". Actually back in the bad old days, we had separate facilities because local "Jim Crow Laws" required them. No merchant wants to discriminate against paying customers, but they would have been defying the laws at the time not to do so. Why were the laws not changed? I don't fully understand because I was just a child when the Civil Rights Movement began. But it is a valid discussion to consider whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the proper vehicle to bring about equal treatment for all races. It is a complicated discussion and too long for this post, but clearly while no one should be required to sit in the back of he bus, it was not always the merchants, rather the governments, who were the culprits.

[RP-Republican]

you have the right serve whoever you want

He didn't saying anything like that...

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

[RP-Republican]

I watched the Meet the Press today, and I apologize if this has been brought up before. i thought the interview was fair, and Dr. Paul did well. However, Im not so sure about the Civil Rights / Segregation thing. Dr. Paul basically stated that if you own a place, you have the right serve whoever you want (i.e. property rights). While I believe in that to a degree - in abstract, Does not everyone agree that the banning of racial/sexual discrimination from places of business is a good thing? I personally think that in this case, its quite fine to have this in place. Do we really want 'Whites Only' places of business still?

I realize much of what he stumps is based on idealogy, however, I would really love for him to begin moving from idealogy to solid facts. People love solid, undeniable staticstics. Can someone pleas clear these issues up for me? I am not a 'troll' and do not appreciate being labeled one whenever I have a valid question, or difference of opinion.


It took me a whole 10 seconds to find this on google maybe you should try it before saying something like
Do we really want 'Whites Only' places of business still?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

[Ernest]

I dont completely agree with you. I feel that any business owner today should be able to open a "whites only" establisment, in fact, id like to see someone try. This would fail miserably, I know I would never go there, and neither would most other people. The point is, if society really wants to be free of racism it will be, the government cannot force that on us in private property. Thoughts?

I don't know what you mean by "whites only" but if there can be "black" stores and "Hispanic" store etc there can also be "white" stores.


The point is, if society really wants to be free of racism it will be, the government cannot force that on us in private property.

I absolutely agree with this point.

[jeffhenderson]

I think we would all prefer a world where everybody was treated the same, regardless of race. Sadly, the world is not perfect. The real question is this: Is it legitimate for the government to use violence or threats of violence against business owners who don't let certain people into their stores? The answer is no way. The only legitimate use of force is in defense of one's person or property, not to make people act nice.

Furthermore, it turns out that if the government just left them alone, the market will certainly punish the bigots. If an employer turns away a more qualified worker just because he's black, then his business will be less efficient than his competitor who chooses to hire him, and his costs will go up. Similarly an owner of a "whites only" store will lose a lot of sales. The market places huge punishments on businesses that decide their customers and workers for non-economic reasons.

More on the above here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/12/caplan_on_discr.html

[Ernest]

Furthermore, it turns out that if the government just left them alone, the market will certainly punish the bigots. If an employer turns away a more qualified worker just because he's black.


Or because he is white.

[jmunjr]

In today's world, it would be utterly stupid to bar those of other races and sexualities from service at your business. Society is by leaps and bounds more tolerant than it was in the 1960s, and if an owner did this, they would lose business to other firms and get quashed. Not to mention the backlash that would occur in local media.

PRECISELY!! The Civil Rights Act was unnecessary. Dom Imus...> He did nothing illegal, but he' s gone!!

I'm sure there are many individuals and businesses that have suffered from quasi-racial positions that weren't illegal in any way. We don't need the government to get involved..unless a crime has been broken(and often not even then).

[Corydoras]

Do you think there should be gyms for women only?
http://badgerherald.com/news/2003/03/25/curves_bill_would_al.php

[driller80545]

any time that you lump people into groups such as race, you are feeding racism. RP is for individual liberty. the civil rights act, instead of ending racism, inadvertently created racism by describing people as groups instead of individuals.

[specsaregood]

Ron Paul's arguments as stated in the link posted above are twofold.

1. It was unconstitutional. They used the interstate commerce clause loophole. The same loophole used for the war on drugs.
"This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. "

2. Negative results:
"Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. "

I have also heard him use a 3rd argument before (the free market)
3. Businesses turning away business because of the color of their potential customers' skin would have lost business. If I have a competitor that turns away business for immoral reasons, I as a business owner would be willing to service those customers.

Barry Goldwater was also against this legislation and said about it, "You can't legislate morality." I think I have heard Ron Paul use that phrase before.

I would bet that Ron Paul agrees in regards to the sections of the legislation affecting government instutions and services; but draws the line when the Federal government starts meddling in private businesses. It also leads to "special rights" as certain businesses have gotten an exemption from the employment regulations for "authenticity". ie: Chinese restaurants being able to hire only chinese employees. And we all know that Ron Paul is for equal rights, not special rights.

[user]

If the business is not subsidized by the government (and in today's world, that's a very big if), then I agree with RP.

[Dsteenbock]

Yep. Maybe If the government got out of It, the people would follow and racism will die the death It needs to die. It's a shame in this day and age It's still propagated, unfortunatly, by both blacks and whites.

[rodent]

I watched the Meet the Press today, and I apologize if this has been brought up before. i thought the interview was fair, and Dr. Paul did well. However, Im not so sure about the Civil Rights / Segregation thing. Dr. Paul basically stated that if you own a place, you have the right serve whoever you want (i.e. property rights). While I believe in that to a degree - in abstract, Does not everyone agree that the banning of racial/sexual discrimination from places of business is a good thing? I personally think that in this case, its quite fine to have this in place. Do we really want 'Whites Only' places of business still?


I'm of the opinion that whites-only businesses are fine; however, I think market-access should be fair for everyone. It used to be in the past that they'd prevent blacks from owning and purchasing real-estate. I think markets need to remain open. I'm not comfortable with the idea of allowing insider-trading and allowing whites-only market transactions.

With regards to lending, I think access to capital should be the same. Historically, shutting off blacks from market access did more damage to them than anything else.

[Ernest]

I'm of the opinion that whites-only businesses are fine; however, I think market-access should be fair for everyone. It used to be in the past that they'd prevent blacks from owning and purchasing real-estate. I think markets need to remain open. I'm not comfortable with the idea of allowing insider-trading and allowing whites-only market transactions.

Yes but it applies to all. Not just whites.


With regards to lending, I think access to capital should be the same.

Absolultely but nor do you get a loan just because you are black or whatever.

[free.alive]

I lived in South Philly for a while, and I know that most of the guys who work at Geno's are generally racist as hell, or at least they were while I lived there. My black friend had a customer service complaint once and a couple of them starting yelling "****** (this), ****** (that)," at him and one of the guys actually threatened him when he took him to task for treating a customer like that.

I never ordered from Geno's again (Pat's is across the street and has better steaks anyway - whoops! that could start some controversy!). Nonetheless, I maintain they have the right to be as much of an asshole to anyone they want on their property. It's a right that comes with the responsibility of ownership.

[Ernest]

I lived in South Philly for a while, and I know that most of the guys who work at Geno's are generally racist as hell, or at least they were while I lived there. My black friend had a customer service complaint once and a couple of them starting yelling "****** (this), ****** (that)," at him and one of the guys actually threatened him when he took him to task for treating a customer like that.

I never ordered from Geno's again (Pat's is across the street and has better steaks anyway - whoops! that could start some controversy!). Nonetheless, I maintain they have the right to be as much of an asshole to anyone they want on their property. It's a right that comes with the responsibility of ownership.

You are trying to get this thread shut down but this is a very necessary and rational conversation America needs to have. Nationwide.

[free.alive]

throughnothing,

Great point! You simply cannot legislate morality, no matter how much you may want to or how much better things may be. It simply won't work, the government has no moral authority to do it, and it will inevitably cause an aggressive backlash. I would argue that the modern white supremacist movement is rooted in such a rebellion.

[free.alive]

No, I'm not trying to get this thread shut down. It's unfortunate that the story I was relating to this topic included racial epithets I would otherwise never utter. However, context reveals that I had no ill intent (in fact, quite the opposite) and, furthermore, found the culprit reprehensible. I see no value in self-censoring to such a degree. Nonetheless, you will likely never read those words in a post of mine again.

[free.alive]

However, I would have to laugh if this thread DID turn into a Pat's vs. Geno's vs. Jim's 'Best of Philly' cheese steak debate! LOL

[jorlowitz]

Is legislating against segregation really legislating morality? Is it any more so than legislating against murder? When a person is required to let all people into their private establishment (or at least not to discriminate against them on the basis of race), they are not required to like or appreciate or even tolerate them. Just to let them in.

I accept there are problems either way: if forced desegregation does not happen, then the excluded person is harmed by losing access (and it was not ALWAYS true that there would be another equal place where they could go). On the other hand, if they are forced in, then the owners and possibly other patrons are harmed in a way by being forced to accept or at least be around someone they'd rather not.

I'm not fully convinced why prohibiting segregation is so harmful...

[user]

Is legislating against segregation really legislating morality? Is it any more so than legislating against murder? When a person is required to let all people into their private establishment (or at least not to discriminate against them on the basis of race), they are not required to like or appreciate or even tolerate them. Just to let them in.

I accept there are problems either way: if forced desegregation does not happen, then the excluded person is harmed by losing access (and it was not ALWAYS true that there would be another equal place where they could go). On the other hand, if they are forced in, then the owners and possibly other patrons are harmed in a way by being forced to accept or at least be around someone they'd rather not.

I'm not fully convinced why prohibiting segregation is so harmful...
Shouldn't an individual have the right to decide who to allow on their property, for any reason?

[free.alive]

I was talking about legislating against racism. It's impossible.

You can legislate against murder, you can legislate against not allowing certain people on your property, you can legislate against any act you want. You can't, however, legislate against an idea, against a perspective, against a lie, against a frame of mind, against thought. To assume even the slightest right of government to have a say in such matters opens up a very frightening can of worms.

If you want to end racism you need time, education, persuasion, empathy, compassion, experience and people who lead and encourage by example.

[dircha]

The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in employment even when discrimination on the basis of race serves a business interest.

For example, while it is perfectly legal to be a white supremacist, under the Civil Rights Act it is illegal for you as a business owner to hire whites over non-whites on the basis of race, even if doing so serves business interests catering to a predominately white supremacist clientele.

Likewise, while it is perfectly legal to be a black supremacist, under the Civil Rights Act it is illegal for you as a business owner to hire blacks over non-blacks on the basis of race, even if doing so serves business interests catering to a predominately black supremacist clientele.

But it is perfectly legal for you as a business owner to, for example, hire only women of particular proportions when doing so serves business interests catering to a clientele that prefers women of those proportions, even though a woman's capacity to achieve set proportions - depending upon the constraints - is substantially beyond her control. But I don't think anyone here would argue that the federal government can Constitutionally prohibit a private employer from hiring women who physically fit within a set of desired proportions, as undesirable as that may seem to talk about.

While I think we can all agree that ours would be a more virtuous society if we did not have racial supremacists, and likewise if we did not show preference for women of certain proportions over others, the fact that a private employer can legally pursue the latter legitimate business interest, but not the former, demonstrates why the Civil Rights Act is an unlawful federal abridgment of the 1st amendment liberties of the private employer.

Though of course whether or not it is an abridgment of any Constitutional liberties is irrelevant. The Civil Rights Act, in these aspects, clearly does not fall within the Constitutionally authorized powers of federal government, and we should seek to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn this precedent.

[hypnagogue]

Woah what a tough issue. A couple of my thoughts.

I see no guarantee that the market incentive to include a larger customer base would overcome any cultural stigma. None of use could guarantee that minorities would not be disenfranchised through free contract at the discrimination of the majority population. This is very much why pure democracy is dangerous to the individual.

So is there anything that can be done, if you believe there is in fact a solution? I see two options. Coercion through legislation or coercion through a popular movement. The popular movement could take either the form of persuasion or economic influence. Clearly the latter would be most effective, but it would be predicated on having the most influential individuals and institutions being both anti-racist and holding that position above the market rewards lost due to their refusal to deal with other racist individuals or institutions. Something which I don't believe was the case when the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Legislation does create racial tension. It creates the appearance of favoritism and special privileges. It also has immediate and substantial effect.

I guess it's the difference between fast and certain, and slow and trying. At least that's the pragmatic analysis. The effect on principle is another.

[free.alive]

Dircha! +1...again!

However, woman, or men for that matter, CAN change their physical proportions, although the degree to which they can change them is questionable. Given the fact that one can alter some physical characteristics, yet not others - especially those tied to race, this leaves open the argument that the current interpretation and application of the Civil Rights Act is fair. Whether it's Constitutional or not, that is another matter.

Michael Jackson definitely complicates things here, however, if it's true that he has had his skin color altered. Please inform me whether this is true or not if you happen to know, anyone.

[JohnnyWrath]

I'm not fully convinced why prohibiting segregation is so harmful...

I was born and raised early on in Cleveland Ohio. The government forced integration on the city, and that meant that small children were forced to go to schools on the other side of a very large city taking several buses in many cases. My parents pulled us out of the public school system and into private schools because of this, and two years later, we left for the suburbs along with many others.

What it did was cause white flight into the suburbs, and now Cleveland is 51% black and 30% white. Most of those who left had the means to seek homes in the suburbs....this included the well to do, store owners, etc, and they left Cleveland the poorest large city in the nation.(sometimes Detroit). Stores are boarded up all over Cleveland.

This is my take on it anyway....things would have worked much better, and Cleveland would be in better shape right now, if the government had stayed out of it.


In Cleveland, desegregation represents a one billion dollar taxpayer investment, which has facilitated the exodus of over 80% of the city's families and children.

Because of the depletion of white children from the city schools and, therefore, a change in demographics, black children are now bused out of their communities to predominantly black schools in other parts of town. The busing nightmare has left some poor black children walking long, unnecessary distances to schools outside their neighborhoods. They are held hostage to repeated and unnecessary school reassignments, which are designed to justify "race ratios."

Masses of black families are being exploited in the promotion of a civil rights agenda that services only the needs of special interest and a non-authentic black leadership. -- Genevieve Mitchell is a member of the Cleveland Board of Education. She also heads the Black Women's Center, 1419 E. 80th Street, Cleveland, OH

[AceNZ]

In addition to the violation of private property rights and the constitutional issues, the other thing about trying to legislate against racism is that the laws actually tend to have the reverse effect.

One example is medical schools, which are required to accept a certain number of minority students. Knowing that some minorities are accepted into medical school based on the color of their skin, rather than on intelligence or test scores, etc, as with all others -- wouldn't you be inclined to discriminate against those minorities when choosing a doctor, regardless of your own skin color? If anything, such laws are backwards. If the goal is to generate respect for minorities, then only the absolute best and brightest should be admitted.

It reminds me of the government's attempts to reduce the impact of imported cars on the American auto industry. A law was passed that limited the number of cars that could be imported. At the time, most Japanese cars were cheap, and not well-respected. But since only a few cars could be imported, the importers changed and started importing the nicest, most expensive cars they could, in order to maximize profits on those few cars. The result was that American's opinion of imports improved, and they became more successful in the end than their American counterparts.

My point is that legislation has side-effects. Even when it seems on the surface like it might be a good idea, it often isn't. On the issue of civil rights, using force to require employers to hire minorities just reinforces racial division. Government talks about wanting a "color blind" society, then enacts laws that force people to pay attention to color. It's backwards! To compound the problem, government forcibly takes money from one group (the people who favored segregation), and uses it to promote the views of another (the people who favored integration). Then people are surprised when racism flourishes. Imagine someone taking your money by force and then using it to support something you despise. Wouldn't that just reinforce your feelings?

[Ernest]

Bump for a very interesting and worthwhile discussion about an issue that needs change and input from American citizens.