Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Ku Klux Klan?

[Carson]

I sort of had a "no" vote cast way back at any business being able to refuse doing business any customer.

When it happens to me again someday I hope we can just move on without getting into details why. I can't remember when but I'm sure it must have.

[Paulbot99]

Property rights are property rights. No.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Now is this before or after the Klan decides to put the restaurant to the torch anyway?

[jmdrake]

OK.

My position is, of course, that they shouldn't. Do you agree?

My position is look at the root of the problem (Wickard v Filburn) rather than wasting energy on the leaves.

It was essentially a non-issue in places with freedom on the issue. As blacks in Alabama were protesting not being able to eat at Woolworth's, blacks in Chicago were sitting at Woolworth's eating sandwiches peacefully alongside the whites.

Blacks in Nashville had desegregated Woolworth's prior to the passage of the CRA as well.

It wasn't a Woolworth's problem! It wasn't a private business problem! The problem was a Monopoly State problem. The obnoxious monopoly state arrogated to itself to decide who could and could not eat together, what businesses could and could not do.

Wrong. Prior state forced desegregation ended with Brown v. Board of Education. So no Woolworth's in the country was being forced from 1954 on by the state to be segregated. The force came from private organizations like the KKK and from public pressure. Actually the benefit of the Civil Rights Act is that it gave cover to companies that wanted to desegregate but were afraid of the backlash from racist white consumers. After the passage of the CRA they were able to somewhat honestly say "See! We have to let blacks eat here." Also if you think that Chicago was somehow less statist than Alabama you are deluding yourself. Chicago was less racist. The racist laws in Alabama were passed by the racism of the people of Alabama. When those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court, segregation still existed by "color of law" because of the attitudes. Direct action by civil rights leaders somewhat loosened those attitudes even before the CRA.

And they're still doing that!

And they shouldn't! It causes problems. Big ones. Small ones. Unforeseen ones. Unknown ones.

Everyone should (obviously) let everyone else do business with whomever they please. The CRA doesn't do that. The CRA makes certain businesses serve people they would rather not serve, involuntarily. It mandates involuntary servitude. It mandates slavery, JM.

If you believe that then you don't understand slavery and you don't understand the CRA. In fact this last post shows your lack of understanding. You need to seriously educate yourself before trying to convince anyone of anything. Chicago was not free. Anyone who wants to today could still not serve blacks and own a restaurant. And a slave is not able to not serve someone by going out of business. There are legitimate criticisms that can be made of the CRA but you aren't making them.

You would have to change your entire business model to one that's probably non-viable. And even then, I do not believe you would be safe. Could Sam's Club or Costco decide tomorrow to ban all blacks? No.

A typical lunch counter could. Ollies BBQ could have. And if you don't know why I'm bringing up Ollie's BBQ than again that shows you don't know enough about the history of the CRA to comment on it. Sam's and Costco didn't exist in 1964 and such a business would not be viable discriminating against blacks anyway because they would face too much pressure in the states where segregation was not socially acceptable.

I think it's an interesting issue to demonstrate the supremacy and importance of property rights.

You are free to your own opinion. I am free to mine.

I think it's a wonderful analogy. Now is it identical to the mandate it's mocking? No. But that's why they're analogies. The lesson the analogy is teaching, by way of humor, is this: no one should be forced to serve anyone else. Ever. Based on any criteria. Race, Klu-Klux-Klaniness, whatever.

Really, think this through. Say if you found out that the CIA barred people who were members of the KKK from being agents. Would that bother you? Because it wouldn't bother me. Say if the CIA barred card carrying communists from being agents. Would that bother you? It wouldn't bother me. How about if the CIA barred black people from being agents? That should bother you. If you can see why the CIA should be allowed to bar communists and/or KKK members from being agents but shouldn't be able to bar people based on race, then you should understand why this analogy that you are stuck on stupid about doesn't work.

No one should be forced to serve anyone else.

Again, nobody is.

I support this position. I oppose slavery.

[jmdrake]

Now is this before or after the Klan decides to put the restaurant to the torch anyway?

That's just it. The klan wasn't hurting black businesses that just served black people. At least not unless they knew the black businessmen were supporting desegregation. The klan was far more likely to torch a white business that served blacks. Some of the people in this thread have no clue of the reality of life in the south during that era. An ancestor of mine who was a foot specialists was put on a klan hit list because someone saw through his store window that he was working on a white woman's feet. His friend that warned him about the threat was a member of the klan. All of the politically powerful white people living in the area at the time were klansman. Doing research on family history I read newspapers on the era. The klan's meetings were advertised on the front page of the paper. Does it really matter if your business is shut down by government forced segregation as opposed to private action by groups like the klan? The Woolworth's of the world were happy to be "forced" to desegregate because they wanted to desegregate anyway because they wanted to make more money and dumb rednecks were getting in their way. That's why the 1964 CRA passed.

[jmdrake]

Relevant reading...


KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan...



Continued - KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan

^That's funny.

[DFF]

A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

[Southron]

Now is this before or after the Klan decides to put the restaurant to the torch anyway?

Did I miss a revival of the Klan? I bet they have more feds in the org than real members.

[Dianne]

NO .. No one should be forced to serve anyone ... If Obama came into my restaurant, I would tell him to f'k off. That's my right,and I would be delighted to show it the door.

[Suzanimal]

Relevant reading...


KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan...



Continued - KKK rebrand: Blacks, Hispanics, gays & Jews now welcomed by Ku Klux Klan

[Natural Citizen]

That's a dangerously misleading article, though. Consider this which I'll share from it...

To join the new non-discriminatory group, you need to be 18, live in the Pacific Northwest, and want to fight against a "new world order," which, according to Abarr, the US government is trying to usher in.

Think about what they're painting there.

[jbauer]

The gay folks keep finding places that don't want to serve them.

Would a KKK member go to a black restaurant to begin with?

[jmdrake]

The gay folks keep finding places that don't want to serve them.

And if you really want to make a cogent argument against the CRA ^this is the place to start. I can't believe people are so stuck on the stupid KKK analogy.

[brushfire]

That the very premise of this thread is irredeemably stupid. I will sum up it's stupidity in two points.

1) Membership in a private organization is not and never will be a "protected class". If a white restaurant owner wanted to bar all member of the NAACP from his establishment he could without violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

2) If blacks had to agree to let a klansman eat at a black owned restaurant in order to end segregation, public and private, most blacks would chose to let the klansman eat at the black restaurant. I don't know what that's so freaking hard for people here at RPF to understand.

If you want to make headway with black people on the Civil Rights Act, come up with another example. We really don't give a rats ass about whether or not a customer wears white sheets in his spare time.



Edit: There is an anti CRA argument that might actually hold water. But I will leave it up to others to point that out. Those who wish to continue to defend John Stossel's abject idiocy on this issue don't deserve enlightenment.

I heard a similar story on "snapjudgement" - A MUST LISTEN, IMO: https://soundcloud.com/snapjudgment/...ar-lounge-snap

[Occam's Banana]

Did I miss a revival of the Klan? I bet they have more feds in the org than real members.

In that case, someone should tell Morris Dees and the SPLC. They need to remove the KKK from their list ...

Membership in a private organization is not and never will be a "protected class".

Such memberships may not currently be "protected classes" - but I'm not at all certain that they never will be.

(When it comes to the insanities in which governments might indulge, "never say never" ...)

[jmdrake]

Such memberships may not currently be "protected classes" - but I'm not at all certain that they never will be.

(When it comes to the insanities in which governments might indulge, "never say never" ...)

I would say never. How would the FBI/MIAC be able to put patriot groups on terrorist lists if it simultaneously decided to make group membership a protected class?

[Occam's Banana]

I would say never. How would the FBI/MIAC be able to put patriot groups on terrorist lists if it simultaneously decided to make group membership a protected class?

By making some group memberships a "protected class" - but not others ...

[willwash]

I voted yes, but here is the caveat:

It would force logical consistency in our current laws, which will awaken some people to their injustice.

[acptulsa]

Did I miss a revival of the Klan? I bet they have more feds in the org than real members.

When did that become an either/or?

How quickly we've forgotten Robert Byrd...

[helmuth_hubener]

JM,

Thank you so much for your reply! Let me try to explain myself a little more. By the way, are you a libertarian?

My position is look at the root of the problem (Wickard v Filburn) rather than wasting energy on the leaves.

Well, everyone has a different idea of what is important and fundamental vs. what is trivia and relatively unimportant. My own bias is that philosophical issues are more important. Or, actually, just that they are more interesting and intellectually stimulating to talk about. Which is my purpose for coming on this discussion forum. I had to look up your court case. Ah, the farmer who affected interstate commerce through not engaging in interstate commerce. I was aware of this case through listening to countless Mises lectures, but did not even know the name of it. Didn't care. But you did. See? We have different ideas of what's important. I say: "Who cares what the name of some old case where the black dresses tossed off yet another awful, nonsensical, and tyrannical verdict? That's to be expected. They have incentive to be awful." You say: "You are so ignorant you don't even know the name of this court case, much less its details and intricacies. I'm sure you've never read the court proceedings report! (guilty as charged). You've also probably never read the Civil Rights Act. (guilty again). Why, you're not qualified to have an opinion on this matter!"

So, different people have different ideas of what is important and indispensable to know in order to form a correct opinion on a matter. Would you agree?

Also, it sounds like you would like the Civil Rights Act to be done away with, along with all such intrastate commerce regulation by the Ferals. You'd like reverse the Wickard/Filburn decision, right? Am I right about that?

Blacks in Nashville had desegregated Woolworth's prior to the passage of the CRA as well.

Great! Again, it clearly was not a Woolworth's problem. To the extent there was a problem, it was a state problem. It's always a state problem. That's kind of the default for all problems. Is society experiencing a baffling problem? Let's see if the monopoly state is somehow causing it. Chances are, it is. Otherwise, society tends to match people's preferences. When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state.

If you believe that then you don't understand slavery and you don't understand the CRA.

OK. I will explain how I see it. And then you can explain, logically, carefully, slowly, why I am wrong. Is it a deal? Here is how I see it:

1. Slavery is involuntary servitude. Slavery encompasses more than just chattel slavery. The military draft, for instance, is slavery. The income tax is also slavery.

2. No one should be enslaved, that is, made to give in involuntary service. Even very unpopular people in very unpopular groups, like businessmen.

3. The CRA forces certain businessmen running their business in certain ways to serve certain people, even if that is against their will. They force businessmen to give service involuntarily.

4. Thus, the CRA implements slavery against businessmen. Now you can say, "who cares about those money-grubbing businessmen, b-men -- bee-ggers, I call them. Them bee-ggers ain't even human. They're meant to serve us, their superiors, that's just the natural order of things. They don't like it, they can stop being dirty bee-ggers." But if you said that, I would disagree. I oppose slavery, even against unpopular groups of people.

If I have a business -- no matter what the business type, no matter how "open to the public" it is -- I have the right to serve, or to not serve, anyone I choose.

Does that all make sense? Even if you disagree with it, please do go to the effort of making it make sense in your mind (or if you have any questions, please ask) and then, like I said, please slowly and logically explain exactly why I am wrong in my reasoning. Because to me, you understand, the case seems awfully air-tight.

In fact this last post shows your lack of understanding. You need to seriously educate yourself before trying to convince anyone of anything.

Certainly I lack a great deal of understanding. I readily acknowledge this. And I have no problem talking to you, my intellectual superior. But perhaps it irritates you to have to talk to inferiors like myself?

Anyone who wants to today could still not serve blacks and own a restaurant.

I do not think that is the case in the way I would like it to be the case. People are not at liberty to open the Whites Only Drive-Through Hamburgertopia. And I believe they should be. My understanding of freedom is that forcing anyone to serve anyone else is antithetical to freedom.

Really, think this through. Say if you found out that Walmart barred people who were members of the KKK from being employees. Would that bother you? Because it wouldn't bother me. Say if Walmart barred card carrying communists from being employees. Would that bother you? It wouldn't bother me. How about if Walmart barred black people from being employees? That should bother you.

I do not think it should. And it most certainly wouldn't bother me. So you can say that I am wrong for not being bothered, that my botherment subsystem is out of order, but the fact remains that I am really and truly not bothered by such things. Sorry! I just believe people should be free to do whatever peaceful, voluntary things they want to do! That's just me! Sorry if that makes me wrong or broken. But I really, really believe that and feel that. If you show me with logic why I should not feel that way, then I can change my mind and feel differently.

[Working Poor]

This is a great question to ask a liberal. Lol

I created a poll at my favorite liberal site and you can believe that the yeses are ahead. Here is the link in case anyone would like to read the comments:

http://lisafrequency.newsvine.com/_n...376-lastNewId1

[Ronin Truth]

Only if a white restaurant owner can be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers.

[jmdrake]

By making some group memberships a "protected class" - but not others ...

Well considering that the KKK, for all its sliminess, is anti globalist, there's no way it would ever get to be a "protected class."

[jmdrake]

I voted yes, but here is the caveat:

It would force logical consistency in our current laws, which will awaken some people to their injustice.

Again. This argument itself lacks "logical consistency". Answer this question. Are you okay with the FBI barring known members of ISIS from becoming members? Are you okay with the FBI banning Arabs from being members? If the answer to both of those questions is the same then I question your sanity. If the answer to the first is "yes" and the second is "no" then you should understand that your argument WRT the KKK and the CRA doesn't hold water.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Should a white restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers?

Of course not, and this is why Rand Paul was exactly right for opposing the section of the Civil Rights Act that enforces this sort of thing.

[jmdrake]

JM,

Thank you so much for your reply! Let me try to explain myself a little more. By the way, are you a libertarian?

No. I refuse to wear that label because of stupid people like John Stossel. Those pushing his idiocy help confirm why I would never want to be considered a libertarian. I don't think Ron Paul would ever make a retarded argument like this. I respect Ron Paul's position on the CRA though I don't totally agree with it. But Ron Paul is not retarded. John Stossel is.

Well, everyone has a different idea of what is important and fundamental vs. what is trivia and relatively unimportant. My own bias is that philosophical issues are more important. Or, actually, just that they are more interesting and intellectually stimulating to talk about. Which is my purpose for coming on this discussion forum. I had to look up your court case. Ah, the farmer who affected interstate commerce through not engaging in interstate commerce. I was aware of this case through listening to countless Mises lectures, but did not even know the name of it. Didn't care. But you did. See? We have different ideas of what's important. I say: "Who cares what the name of some old case where the black dresses tossed off yet another awful, nonsensical, and tyrannical verdict? That's to be expected. They have incentive to be awful." You say: "You are so ignorant you don't even know the name of this court case, much less its details and intricacies. I'm sure you've never read the court proceedings report! (guilty as charged). You've also probably never read the Civil Rights Act. (guilty again). Why, you're not qualified to have an opinion on this matter!"

You should have paid more attention to the Mises lecture. It's not just because of the farmer and food issue. Wickard v. Filburn is the BASIS for almost all federal regulations that you don't like! Not understanding Wickard v. Filburn is like trying to support free markets and not understanding the Federal Reserve. Wickard v. Filburn is the reason why Supreme Court Justice nominees can say things like this:



Wickard v. Filburn is why the U.S. Supreme Court claims the Federal Government can have national prohibition of marijuana and other drugs.

So, different people have different ideas of what is important and indispensable to know in order to form a correct opinion on a matter. Would you agree?

Have whatever opinion you want. I really don't care. But the KKK analogy is incompetent. If you want to push it and look incompetent, go ahead.

Also, it sounds like you would like the Civil Rights Act to be done away with, along with all such intrastate commerce regulation by the Ferals. You'd like reverse the Wickard/Filburn decision, right? Am I right about that?

Two different things. I would like Wickard/Filburn overturned. Technically parts of the CRA could stand without it. That's because of the way the CRA is written. Wickard v. Filburn addressed produce that didn't travel in interstate commerce but could arguably have some cumulative effect on interstate commerce. The CRA only covers restaurants that are near interstate highways or use a substantial amount of food that traveled in interstate commerce. The "near interstate highways" party couldn't stand without Wickard v. Filburn. The "food that traveled in interstate commerce" portion arguably could. The irony here is that a restaurant that was off the beaten path and that embraced the "buy local" movement could discriminate based on race and not violate the CRA. So this is what I'm for. Overturn Wickard v. Filburn and let the chips fall where the may on the CRA or anything else. I don't have this CRA obsession you and others seem to have.

Great! Again, it clearly was not a Woolworth's problem. To the extent there was a problem, it was a state problem. It's always a state problem. That's kind of the default for all problems. Is society experiencing a baffling problem? Let's see if the monopoly state is somehow causing it. Chances are, it is. Otherwise, society tends to match people's preferences. When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state.

It was more than just a state problem. If it was only a state problem then Woolworth would have automatically desegregated everywhere after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. Woolworth didn't. Why? Because in the south they faced KKK violence if they desegregated coupled with potential loss of income from whites who wouldn't eat with blacks. The black "sit ins" caused a change in the economic equilibrium. The disruption of economic activity from those private acts of civil disobedience meant that trying to appease white customers who didn't want to eat with blacks just wasn't worth it. Technically speaking the sit ins were as much a violation of the oh so sacred "property rights" as was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I've seen people here at RPF argue against them on that very basis. So no, it's not just the "state monopoly" that was the problem. It was the human condition.

OK. I will explain how I see it. And then you can explain, logically, carefully, slowly, why I am wrong. Is it a deal? Here is how I see it:

1. Slavery is involuntary servitude. Slavery encompasses more than just chattel slavery. The military draft, for instance, is slavery. The income tax is also slavery.

2. No one should be enslaved, that is, made to give in involuntary service. Even very unpopular people in very unpopular groups, like businessmen.

3. The CRA forces certain businessmen running their business in certain ways to serve certain people, even if that is against their will. They force businessmen to give service involuntarily.

4. Thus, the CRA implements slavery against businessmen. Now you can say, "who cares about those money-grubbing businessmen, b-men -- bee-ggers, I call them. Them bee-ggers ain't even human. They're meant to serve us, their superiors, that's just the natural order of things. They don't like it, they can stop being dirty bee-ggers." But if you said that, I would disagree. I oppose slavery, even against unpopular groups of people.

If I have a business -- no matter what the business type, no matter how "open to the public" it is -- I have the right to serve, or to not serve, anyone I choose.

Does that all make sense? Even if you disagree with it, please do go to the effort of making it make sense in your mind (or if you have any questions, please ask) and then, like I said, please slowly and logically explain exactly why I am wrong in my reasoning. Because to me, you understand, the case seems awfully air-tight.

The military draft does not give you the option of simply not going. So your own analogy destroys your own argument. If you own a business and you don't want to serve certain people, you can go out of business. But you also can avoid serving certain people and not violate the civil rights act by simply being careful where you buy your food from and where you are located. As for the income tax, that's not slavery. That's theft. Money that you earn is taken from you without compensation. Nobody is forcing you to work to earn it. If the local mafia comes and shakes the hookers down for a cut of their action that's theft. If the local mafia grabs women who don't want to be hookers and forces them to be hookers that's slavery. So no. Your "CRA = slavery" argument is not valid.

Certainly I lack a great deal of understanding. I readily acknowledge this. And I have no problem talking to you, my intellectual superior. But perhaps it irritates you to have to talk to inferiors like myself?

It irritates me that some people feel I must accept what to me is an incompetent and offensive analogy in order to be considered a "libertarian". So I reject the label. It's irritating to me that after 4 years of this being discussed people still can't seem to understand that race != voluntary group membership. It's irritating to me that you seem to want to force what I consider a stupid idea down my throat by resurrecting a dead thread and calling me out in it. Those are my "irritations".

I do not think that is the case in the way I would like it to be the case. People are not at liberty to open the Whites Only Drive-Through Hamburgertopia. And I believe they should be. My understanding of freedom is that forcing anyone to serve anyone else is antithetical to freedom.

Do you want to open one? If you do and you are willing to pay me the legal fees to explain to you how you can then let me know I'll draw up the paperwork for you. I'll be happy to take your money so that you can do something stupid. Now, if you want to open up a McDonald's or a Burger King you still have to draw up certain paperwork and follow certain regulations. So...if your definition of "freedom" is "I should be able to do whatever I want without having to draw up the right papers"...well getting rid of the CRA won't make you "free". And that's why I think this entire discussion is a stupid distraction. You can't even open up a lemonade stand in most cities without a business license and you are concerned with whether or not you can open up a "whites only" one? To me that's just stupid. I want to reach out to the people that understand that stopping a kid from selling lemonade for 25 cents a cup because he hasn't paid of the state goons is dumb. You give fodder to those who say "libertarians just want to be racist". Fine. We're at cross purposes. You seek your definition of freedom, I'll seek mine, and I'll gladly not wear the libertarian label.

I do not think it should. And it most certainly wouldn't bother me. So you can say that I am wrong for not being bothered, that my botherment subsystem is out of order, but the fact remains that I am really and truly not bothered by such things. Sorry! I just believe people should be free to do whatever peaceful, voluntary things they want to do! That's just me! Sorry if that makes me wrong or broken.

I never said you should believe that people shouldn't be free to be racist. That's different from being bothered that people are racist. From what I understand libertarians believe that racism is another form of collectivism and is thus wrong. Not everything that is wrong should be illegal. But if you don't think that racism is wrong then maybe you are not libertarian. But hey, I reject the libertarian label so you can do the same as well.

[jmdrake]

Should a white restaurant owner be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers?

Of course not, and this is why Rand Paul was exactly right for opposing the section of the Civil Rights Act that enforces this sort of thing.

Except no part of the civil rights act enforces that sort of thing. Why do people keep pushing the same false idea as if it is true? Repeat 100 times.

The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
.......

[jmdrake]

Only if a white restaurant owner can be forced to serve members of the Black Panthers.

Right. And under the CRA as written they can't. They can't even be forced to serve members of the NAACP if their reason for denying admission to the restaurant is their membership in the NAACP. This whole thread is one big red herring.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Except no part of the civil rights act enforces that sort of thing. Why do people keep pushing the same false idea as if it is true? Repeat 100 times.

The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
The CRA does not apply to voluntary group membership
.......

But it does apply to businesses, which is what we're talking about.

[helmuth_hubener]

No. I refuse to wear that label because of stupid people like John Stossel. Those pushing his idiocy help confirm why I would never want to be considered a libertarian. I don't think Ron Paul would ever make a retarded argument like this. I respect Ron Paul's position on the CRA though I don't totally agree with it. But Ron Paul is not retarded. John Stossel is.

Well, we will have to disagree there. Ron Paul, of course, is in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act. As am I. And as is John Stossel. If you think even the people who agree with your views are retarded unless they use the exact same rhetoric and arguments that you would use in promoting those views, you have likely doomed yourself to living a life surrounded by retards. <shrug>

You should have paid more attention to the Mises lecture. It's not just because of the farmer and food issue. Wickard v. Filburn is the BASIS for almost all federal regulations that you don't like!

I did, actually, understand that point of view. Sorry I did not make my understanding more clear to you. But that does not mean I agree with it. I believe that actually it is the ideology of the people, and especially of the natural elites and opinions leaders, that is the basis for what the federal government does.

Have whatever opinion you want. I really don't care. But the KKK analogy is incompetent. If you want to push it and look incompetent, go ahead.

Actually, my own preferred analogy (at least one of them) is to draw a parallel between the aggressive, violent enslavement that the civil rights act enacts with other enslavement. I oppose all the enslavement.

I don't have this CRA obsession you and others seem to have.

Do you also not have this
police abuse obsession
monetary policy obsession
occupational licensure obsession
land tax obsession
aviation regulations obsession
zoning laws obsession
that I and others have?

It's all about freedom to me. I'm in love with and passionate about freedom. Obsession makes it sound like a bad, unhealthy thing, but laying aside that connotation: yes, I am obsessed with freedom!

Great! Again, it clearly was not a Woolworth's problem. To the extent there was a problem, it was a state problem. It's always a state problem. That's kind of the default for all problems. Is society experiencing a baffling problem? Let's see if the monopoly state is somehow causing it. Chances are, it is. Otherwise, society tends to match people's preferences. When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state.

It was more than just a state problem. If it was only a state problem then Woolworth would have automatically desegregated everywhere after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. Woolworth didn't. Why? Because in the south they faced KKK violence if they desegregated coupled with potential loss of income from whites who wouldn't eat with blacks.

That doesn't sound like a problem to me. As I explained, "When there is a massive, widespread failure to meet people's preferences, Suspect #1 should always be the monopoly state." Sounds to me like the people's preferences were being met. You have just stated that there was a widespread, dominant preference in the south for whites and blacks to stay apart in many contexts. That the market would succeed therefore in allowing whites and blacks to stay apart in these contexts is not surprising. That is success for the market, not a failure, not a problem. The market succeeds when it allows people to be free to live their lives how they want to live it. That includes "racist" white people, and also the "racist" black people who likewise preferred voluntary segregation. Sorry!

Now finally we get to the meat of what I was saying. Let's see if you were able to carefully, logically, explain to me why I'm wrong.

The military draft does not give you the option of simply not going. So your own analogy destroys your own argument. If you own a business and you don't want to serve certain people, you can go out of business. But you also can avoid serving certain people and not violate the civil rights act by simply being careful where you buy your food from and where you are located. As for the income tax, that's not slavery. That's theft. Money that you earn is taken from you without compensation. Nobody is forcing you to work to earn it. If the local mafia comes and shakes the hookers down for a cut of their action that's theft. If the local mafia grabs women who don't want to be hookers and forces them to be hookers that's slavery. So no. Your "CRA = slavery" argument is not valid.

OK, so you are contesting my point #1: Slavery is involuntary servitude. You want slavery to mean something else. I am unwilling to go along with your linguistic proposal, however. Slavery is involuntary servitude. That's really what it means.

"Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others." -- Dictionary.com
"the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work" -- The British Dictionary
"forced submission to control by others" -- Wordnet, Princeton University
" a condition of submission to or domination by some influence, habit, etc." Webster's New World College Dictionary
"control of certain persons for the benefit of other persons, usually under the guise of social, mercantile, and technological progress." -- Encyclopedia.com

So that is how I am using the term "slavery." I am using it to encompass more than just chattel slavery. I do understand that the income tax does not constitute chattel slavery, but it does constitute slavery, because the payer of it is laboring a certain percentage of his time for the benefit of another person or group which is not entitled to it by any legitimate contractual means, and he is doing so against his will. "You could just not work at all!" is true, but does not negate the income tax's nature as slavery. Just so, forcing a retail business to serve races the owner does not want to serve is slavery. Or forcing him to serve gays. Or forcing him to operate in any way which is not how they would choose to operate. That is slavery and that is wrong and I am opposed to it.

If you find it offensive or baffling that I use the word slavery in this way, JM, feel free to substitute the words "involuntary service" in every instance and you will achieve a perfect translation of my meaning.

It irritates me that some people feel I must accept what to me is an incompetent and offensive analogy in order to be considered a "libertarian".

There may be someone who does that, but rest assured that I do not. So if you are irritated with me: rejoice! Your irritation can cease! I perfectly understand (I think) the very real shortcomings of the analogy, and the problems you have with it. Yes, group membership in the KKK is not the same in hardly any way as racial status. It is completely different. One is voluntarily chosen -- the other (at least with our current technology) is not. I really do understand that. I just want you to know that.

I just oppose all aggressive force. Period. That's why I come down on this issue the way I do. Not because of some stretched analogy by John Stossel that is admittedly flawed. Because the CRA initiates aggressive force. Period.

It's irritating to me that you seem to want to force what I consider a stupid idea down my throat by resurrecting a dead thread and calling me out in it.

In looking at the thread in relation to animal rights and distributed micro-polities (a different post) I just also noticed myself writing many things to which you never replied and on which I was curious what you thought.

You still never have said whether you would support the total repeal of the civil rights act. Or, perhaps a better and clearer way to put it: do you support the use of aggressive violence and threat of such to force any business owners to serve blacks together with and equally to whites? Any business owners, regardless of where they buy their vegetables.

So...if your definition of "freedom" is "I should be able to do whatever I want without having to draw up the right papers"...well getting rid of the CRA won't make you "free".

No, indeed it won't. Nor will eliminating zoning laws. Nor pet licensure laws. Nor the Import-export Bank. Nor the National Endowment for the Arts. But each one of those elinimations would be a little step forward. Towards liberty.

To liberty, JM! To liberty!