Full Version: Discrimination and Freedom
The modern Civil Rights Movement is, by convention, defined by the years from 1955 to 1968.
Key events mark both ends of this time line. In 1955 the Montgomery Bus Boycott and in 1968 a double-whammy:
1.) The Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
2.) The Civil Rights Act of 1968
This thread will deal, in large part, with point number two.
(As an aside these are not hard and fast dates, several important related events happened on both sides of the time boundaries. It's just a historian convention)
Link
As was noted this piece of legislation looked back to the original Civil Rights act, back in 1866
Link
and a little info on Jones v. Mayer.
Link
What brings me to start a thread you might ask?
In the context of this discussion, they most certainly are. Freedom of association is the principal means by which a culture flourishes. It's funny how you started out objecting to "assimilationism" on the grounds that it requires some kind of legislation which would be a bad thing, but then did a complete 180 when it turned out you were arguing against the exact opposite position from what you though you were.
Now if you're in favor of these laws, that's your prerogative, but then don't start lecturing me about "liberty", and don't pretend to be the one who's carrying the founders' banner in this discussion. Like I said, they and all subsequent generations until relatively recently insisted on newcomers becoming Americans and Americans only, and the last thing they would have approved of were laws that created special protections for those who refused to do so. You're entitled to your own opinions here, but not to your own facts.
As for my opinion, I say that if we're going to keep using special legislation to undermine freedom of association, which is our culture's (any culture's) natural self-defense mechanism, then it might just behoove us to be a little bit more particular about whom we admit to the ranks of citizenship.
Are the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1968 constitutional? Can the federal government regulate private-sector discrimination?
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
Key events mark both ends of this time line. In 1955 the Montgomery Bus Boycott and in 1968 a double-whammy:
1.) The Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
2.) The Civil Rights Act of 1968
This thread will deal, in large part, with point number two.
(As an aside these are not hard and fast dates, several important related events happened on both sides of the time boundaries. It's just a historian convention)
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (also known as CRA '68), which was meant as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the Civil Rights Act of 1866[1] prohibited discrimination in housing, there were no federal enforcement provisions. The 1968 act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, (and as amended) handicap and family status. It also provided protection for civil rights workers. Title VIII of the Act is also known as the Fair Housing Act (of 1968) .
Victims of discrimination may use both the 1968 act and the 1866 act (via section 1982) to seek redress. The 1968 act provides for federal solutions while the 1866 act provides for private solutions (i.e., civil suits).[...]
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited the following forms of discrimination:
1. Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin. People with disabilities and families with children were added to the list of protected classes by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.
2. Discrimination against a person in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.
3. Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin (and, as of 1988, people with disabilities and families with children.)
4. Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.
Victims of discrimination may use both the 1968 act and the 1866 act (via section 1982) to seek redress. The 1968 act provides for federal solutions while the 1866 act provides for private solutions (i.e., civil suits).[...]
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited the following forms of discrimination:
1. Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin. People with disabilities and families with children were added to the list of protected classes by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.
2. Discrimination against a person in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.
3. Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin (and, as of 1988, people with disabilities and families with children.)
4. Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights.
Link
As was noted this piece of legislation looked back to the original Civil Rights act, back in 1866
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
Throughout American history several pieces of legislation have been called the Civil Rights Act - this was the first such act. It was the most important action by Congress towards protecting the rights of Freedmen during Reconstruction. The Republican-dominated United States Congress passed the act in March 1866, as a counterattack against the Black Codes in the southern United States, which had been recently enacted by all former slave states following the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Included in the Civil Rights Act were the rights to: make contracts, sue, bear witness in court and own private property. President Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill, saying that blacks were not qualified for United States citizenship and that the bill would "operate in favor of the colored and against the white race."
The Republicans in congress overrode the presidential veto on April 9, 1866.[....]A far-reaching consequence of this act is that since 1866, it has been illegal to discriminate in housing based on race. However, federal solutions were not provided for, and remedies were left to the individuals involved. Because those being discriminated against had limited access to legal help, this left many victims of discrimination without recourse. Since the latter half of the 20th century, there have been an increasing number of remedies provided under this act, including the landmark Jones v. Mayer decision in 1968.
The Republicans in congress overrode the presidential veto on April 9, 1866.[....]A far-reaching consequence of this act is that since 1866, it has been illegal to discriminate in housing based on race. However, federal solutions were not provided for, and remedies were left to the individuals involved. Because those being discriminated against had limited access to legal help, this left many victims of discrimination without recourse. Since the latter half of the 20th century, there have been an increasing number of remedies provided under this act, including the landmark Jones v. Mayer decision in 1968.
Link
and a little info on Jones v. Mayer.
QUOTE
Jones, a black man, charged that a real estate company in Missouri's St. Louis County refused to sell him a home in a particular neighborhood on account of his race.[...]The Court sided with Jones and held that Section 1982 of the congressional act was intended to prohibit all discrimination against blacks in the sale and rental of property, including governmental and private discrimination. Furthermore, the Thirteenth Amendment's enforcement section empowered Congress to eliminate racial barriers to the acquisition of property since those barriers constituted "badges and incidents of slavery."
Link
What brings me to start a thread you might ask?
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 3 2007, 01:27 PM) 
As we've already had this discussion, I'll keep it brief: I believe that I can discriminate inside my business, for any reason I choose. The 14th Amendment is quite clear as to who it covers: the States. No State shall make or enforce any law... No State shall deprive. Sorry, nothing in there about private parties.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 12 2007, 11:43 AM)
In fact (to paraphrase Reagan), legislation in modern days hasn't been the solution to the problem, it's been the problem. Such things as multilingual ballots, affirmative action, and laws forcing employers and landlords to sign on people they don't want, lest they be charged with "discrimination" (real or imagined) - these were all completely unknown in the founding era, right on up through the "Ellis Island" era. Instead, our culture was allowed to defend itself, free of any shackles imposed by special legislation, or haranguing by tax-exempt groups like the La Raza and MALDEF.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 14 2007, 12:20 PM)
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 12 2007, 02:52 PM)
Equal housing and employment laws are shackles?
In the context of this discussion, they most certainly are. Freedom of association is the principal means by which a culture flourishes. It's funny how you started out objecting to "assimilationism" on the grounds that it requires some kind of legislation which would be a bad thing, but then did a complete 180 when it turned out you were arguing against the exact opposite position from what you though you were.
Now if you're in favor of these laws, that's your prerogative, but then don't start lecturing me about "liberty", and don't pretend to be the one who's carrying the founders' banner in this discussion. Like I said, they and all subsequent generations until relatively recently insisted on newcomers becoming Americans and Americans only, and the last thing they would have approved of were laws that created special protections for those who refused to do so. You're entitled to your own opinions here, but not to your own facts.
As for my opinion, I say that if we're going to keep using special legislation to undermine freedom of association, which is our culture's (any culture's) natural self-defense mechanism, then it might just behoove us to be a little bit more particular about whom we admit to the ranks of citizenship.
Are the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1968 constitutional? Can the federal government regulate private-sector discrimination?
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
The answer is no. A private individual should be able to associate with who he wants. Before the Civil Rights era there were laws in place enforcing segregation. These laws were a violation of natural law i.e. the basic right of association. Laws enforcing integration are a violation of the same natural right to associate with who you please. I can see an argument how a couple hundred years of forced segregation justifies laws forcing integration. I don't buy it. It is the same violation of natural law that got us into this position in the first place. It is a violation of basic human rights.
The answer is no. A private individual should be able to associate with who he wants. Before the Civil Rights era there were laws in place enforcing segregation. These laws were a violation of natural law i.e. the basic right of association. Laws enforcing integration are a violation of the same natural right to associate with who you please. I can see an argument how a couple hundred years of forced segregation justifies laws forcing integration. I don't buy it. It is the same violation of natural law that got us into this position in the first place. It is a violation of basic human rights.
This is a very important topic turnea, and I am glad that you started it even if we will probably disagree on many points.
Are the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1968 constitutional? Can the federal government regulate private-sector discrimination?
If you are under the assumption that all discrimination is wrong, regardless of the negative/positive effects that it may have on an individual or group, then you will see provisions in these laws as wrong. If however, you think positive discrimination is acceptable in order to address past grievances, then you may not see a problem. The acts had the best of intentions, but go against the very foundations of a free society. The government cannot regulate racism because racism is a behavior. It has social and cultural underpinnings that no state could hope to regulate without forceful measures of coercion.
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
The most important question. The answer is a resounding NO. The government should not be allowed to discriminate in any way. shape, or form. History has shown that the state is the greatest perpetrator of racism. It is because the people are able to use the coercive power of the state to legislate their racist ideals. The government is a blunt instrument which can be used both for good and evil. Our responsibility as free individuals is to make sure that the state never has enough power to make arbitrary decisions on the value of different individuals. Just as easily as they can help one group who is the victim of social discrimination, they can give off the appearance that they are helping someone who is inferior. The state should make no distinction. All people are free and have equal protection. To further explain why discrimination in any form is against the principles of a free state I give way to the late Milton Friedman:
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
I am unsure if i fully understand the question, but I will try to make this distinction that is important to this debate. Private people discriminating is entirely different from the state discriminating. The argument that private entities discriminate and this that makes it ok for the state to discriminate is the height of contradictory and will result in unindented consequences. The state is supposed to treat everyone equally in the eyes of the law. As long as someone is not committing positive harm to another, then the state should not interfere. And let me close with this because I can feel the anger swelling. I am in no way defending one's racist beliefs. I believe it is wrong. But i recognize that in a free society people have different views than I and that the survival of that free society depends on differing viewpoints. Recognizing someone's right to racist does not condone racism itself.
Are the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1968 constitutional? Can the federal government regulate private-sector discrimination?
If you are under the assumption that all discrimination is wrong, regardless of the negative/positive effects that it may have on an individual or group, then you will see provisions in these laws as wrong. If however, you think positive discrimination is acceptable in order to address past grievances, then you may not see a problem. The acts had the best of intentions, but go against the very foundations of a free society. The government cannot regulate racism because racism is a behavior. It has social and cultural underpinnings that no state could hope to regulate without forceful measures of coercion.
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
The most important question. The answer is a resounding NO. The government should not be allowed to discriminate in any way. shape, or form. History has shown that the state is the greatest perpetrator of racism. It is because the people are able to use the coercive power of the state to legislate their racist ideals. The government is a blunt instrument which can be used both for good and evil. Our responsibility as free individuals is to make sure that the state never has enough power to make arbitrary decisions on the value of different individuals. Just as easily as they can help one group who is the victim of social discrimination, they can give off the appearance that they are helping someone who is inferior. The state should make no distinction. All people are free and have equal protection. To further explain why discrimination in any form is against the principles of a free state I give way to the late Milton Friedman:
QUOTE(Milton Friedman @ Capitalism and Freedom )
The proponents of FEPC argue that interference with the freedom of individuals to enter into contracts with one another with respect to employment is justified because the individual who refuses to hire a Negro instead of a white, when both are equally qualified in terms of physical productive capacity, is harming others, namely, the particular color or religious group whose employment opportunity is limited in the process. This argument involves a serious confusion between two very different kinds of harm. One kind is the positive harm that one individual does another by physical force, or by forcing him to enter into a contract without his consent. An obvious example is the man who hits another over the head with a blackjack. The second kind is the negative harm that occurs when two individuals are unable to fund mutually acceptable contracts, as when I am unqilling to buy something that someone wants to sell me and therefore make him worse off than he would be if I bought the item. If the community at large has a preference for blues singers rather than for opera singers, they are certainly increasing the economic well-being of the first relative to the second. If a potential blues singer can find employment and a potentional opera singer cannot, this simply means that the blues singer is rendering services which the community regards as worth paying for whereas the potential opera singer is not. The potential opera singer is 'harmed' by the community's taste. He would be better off and the blues singer 'harmed' if the tastes were reversed. Clearly, this kind of harm does not involve any involuntary exchange or an imposition of costs or granting of benefits to third parties. There is a strong case for using government to prevent one person from imposing positive harm, which is to say, to prevent coercion. There is no case whatsoever for using government to avoid the negative kind of 'harm.' On the contrary, such government intervention reduces freedom and limits voluntary co-operation.
FEPC legislation involves the acceptance of a principle that proponents would find abhorrent in almost every other application. If it is appropriate for the state to say that individuals may not discriminate in employment because because of color or race or religion, then it is equally appropriate for the state, provided a majority can be found to vote that way, to say that individuals must discriminate in employment on the basis of color, race or religion.
<snip>
As already stressed, the appropriate recourse of those of us who believe that a particular criterion such as color is irrelevant is to persuade our fellows to be of like mind, not to use the coercive power of the state to force them to act in accordance with our principles.
FEPC legislation involves the acceptance of a principle that proponents would find abhorrent in almost every other application. If it is appropriate for the state to say that individuals may not discriminate in employment because because of color or race or religion, then it is equally appropriate for the state, provided a majority can be found to vote that way, to say that individuals must discriminate in employment on the basis of color, race or religion.
<snip>
As already stressed, the appropriate recourse of those of us who believe that a particular criterion such as color is irrelevant is to persuade our fellows to be of like mind, not to use the coercive power of the state to force them to act in accordance with our principles.
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
I am unsure if i fully understand the question, but I will try to make this distinction that is important to this debate. Private people discriminating is entirely different from the state discriminating. The argument that private entities discriminate and this that makes it ok for the state to discriminate is the height of contradictory and will result in unindented consequences. The state is supposed to treat everyone equally in the eyes of the law. As long as someone is not committing positive harm to another, then the state should not interfere. And let me close with this because I can feel the anger swelling. I am in no way defending one's racist beliefs. I believe it is wrong. But i recognize that in a free society people have different views than I and that the survival of that free society depends on differing viewpoints. Recognizing someone's right to racist does not condone racism itself.
QUOTE(deng)
These laws were a violation of natural law i.e. the basic right of association.
Even the most basic rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in order to help achieve a just society.
Mandating that a renter base all rental decisions on a rational basis rather than personal bigotry is I think a necessary restriction as much shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
If you are under the assumption that all discrimination is wrong, regardless of the negative/positive effects that it may have on an individual or group, then you will see provisions in these laws as wrong. If however, you think positive discrimination is acceptable in order to address past grievances, then you may not see a problem. The acts had the best of intentions, but go against the very foundations of a free society. The government cannot regulate racism because racism is a behavior. It has social and cultural underpinnings that no state could hope to regulate without forceful measures of coercion.
Theft and murder are behaviors too.
How do these laws constitute "positive" discrimination?
They simply ban housing discrimination.
QUOTE
Are the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1968 constitutional? Can the federal government regulate private-sector discrimination?
What exactly is the argument that they are unconstitutional? Just because the 14th Amendment bars the state from "abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens", doesn't mean that there is a constitutional right for private entities to discriminate. Nowhere in the Constitution do I see a protection for the right of employers to discriminate against people based on race, religion, gender, etc.
QUOTE
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
Yes. I think that, ultimately, the Civil Rights Acts have done much more good than harm. We should really be more concerned about protecting the rights of hard-working qualified people seeking employment, housing, etc. than the rights of bigots to discriminate. Honestly, if a white person is willing to pay $800 a month for a home and a black person is willing to pay $1200 a month, what good reason do you have to go with the white person? What kind of freedom are we trying to protect here? Racism wasn't dead in 1968 and it isn't dead today.
@ Milton Friedman, we're not talking about people's preferences in music. If opera singers can't find work because jazz is more popular, well sorry, that's the way the free market goes. But if people are purposefully hiring less qualified jazz musicians over other more qualified, and potentially more profitable, jazz musicians on the basis of race, then that's discrimination. It is bad for that business, and if this kind of discrimination is widespread enough, it is bad for the economy as a whole. I don't think the efficiency of the market was improved by policies such as "No Irish Need Apply."
QUOTE
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
I don't know what that even means.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 15 2007, 06:00 PM)
QUOTE(deng)
These laws were a violation of natural law i.e. the basic right of association.
Even the most basic rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in order to help achieve a just society.
Mandating that a renter base all rental decisions on a rational basis rather than personal bigotry is I think a necessary restriction as much shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
I guess we disagree. You give government the power to enfringe on basic rights they will do so. The free market, in the absence of government, will greatly limit racial discrimination.
QUOTE(turnea)
Theft and murder are behaviors too.
No they are not. Theft and murder are actions that do positive harm to others. Racism is a behavior that can result in negative harm.
QUOTE(turnea)
How do these laws constitute "positive" discrimination?
They coerce employers into hiring one person of a particular race over someone that they would rather hire. It is 'positive discrimination' because it is seen as a benefit to those who had been previously oppressed.
QUOTE(turnea)
They simply ban housing discrimination.
And they restrict one's right to associate with whom they wish as well as one's right to enter into a contract voluntarily and without coercion.
QUOTE(The Boney King of Nowhere)
I don't think the efficiency of the market was improved by policies such as "No Irish Need Apply."
Exactly! And the market self-regulated to change that. There weren't any laws passed that said that Irish people could not be discriminated against. The market dictated that this huge population of immigrants constituted a significant labor force that could not be ignored. Productivity and capital became was more significant than any internal racist underpinnings that people had. They didnt care if you were Irish, italian, Polish, etc, as long as you could do the job and make them money. All that without government interference.
QUOTE(deng)
The free market, in the absence of government, will greatly limit racial discrimination.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
Exactly! And the market self-regulated to change that. There weren't any laws passed that said that Irish people could not be discriminated against. The market dictated that this huge population of immigrants constituted a significant labor force that could not be ignored. Productivity and capital became was more significant than any internal racist underpinnings that people had. They didnt care if you were Irish, italian, Polish, etc, as long as you could do the job and make them money. All that without government interference.
Yes, the market "self-regulated" after what, 75 years of discrimination and racism? And what about the South after Reconstruction? For a century, Blacks were not free to eat at certain restaurants, live in certain parts of town, or work in certain jobs. This did not self-regulate. In fact, I'm not entirely certain that without the civil rights movement (and the Civil Rights Act) there wouldn't still be rampant institutionalized racism in the South.
As much as I love basic free market economic theory, it all rests on an important assumption: that people act rationally in their own interest. Unfortunately this isn't always true. People aren't always rational. People have irrational prejudices that are actually detrimental to their own interests, the interests of the people they discriminate against, and the interests of the market and society as a whole.
If you're an anarchist, you're free to write all about how the world would be better without any governments. If you're a racist, you're free to talk all about how much better the world would be if blacks couldn't get certain jobs. But it's against the law for that anarchist to actually try to violently overthrow the government, and it's against the law for that racist to actually keep blacks from getting jobs.
QUOTE(turnea)
Yes, the market "self-regulated" after what, 75 years of discrimination and racism? And what about the South after Reconstruction? For a century, Blacks were not free to eat at certain restaurants, live in certain parts of town, or work in certain jobs. This did not self-regulate. In fact, I'm not entirely certain that without the civil rights movement (and the Civil Rights Act) there wouldn't still be rampant institutionalized racism in the South.
Indeed bigotry against the Irish lasted for decades as well and it was no where near as virulent as racism against blacks.
I have always shuddered to think of what harm the sorely lacking education in the history of Civil Rights that our students receive does to our political discourse.
Segregation and institutionalized racism were not solely the product of government action. Private industry actually made tons of money pitting white workers against blacks to weaken unions and enforcing segregation to keep blacks as a desperate workforce.
The dynamics have changed somewhat, though not entirely studies show housing discrimination still occurs widely, but there is a basic logical flaw in much of the reasoning that I've noted from the other side.
The markets are not a force to combat social ills like racism, that is expecting capitalism to do something it was never designed to do. The point is to maximize profits. Predatory leasing rates to blacks do just that.
In addition most racists showed very clearly they were wiling to take a financial loss to uphold segregation in the South. Even when laws were not an issue. Business can survive without one or two demographics just fine.
Are the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866
and 1968 constitutional? Can the federal government regulate private-sector discrimination?
Not according to the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments. Private sector discrimination falls under the heading of "retained rights" and "freedom of association." Nothing in the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendments grants the Federal gov't the authority to infringe on these rights. The bolded portion of the 1866 Act is unconstitutional, the rest is constitutional, although I would direct y'all to consider the implications of the underlined portion as it pertains to immigration.
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
No.
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
Yes, as they have come to be applied. They undermine two values: rule of law, and freedom to determine your own values and, flowing from those, who you associate with.
Sec. 1981. Equal rights under the law
{a} Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall
have the same right in every State and Territory to make and
enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the
full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security
of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall
be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses,
and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
{b} "Make and enforce contracts" defined
For purposes of this section, the term "make and enforce
contracts" includes the making, performance, modification, and
termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits,
privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
{c} Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against
impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under
color of State law.
and 1968 constitutional? Can the federal government regulate private-sector discrimination?
Not according to the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments. Private sector discrimination falls under the heading of "retained rights" and "freedom of association." Nothing in the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendments grants the Federal gov't the authority to infringe on these rights. The bolded portion of the 1866 Act is unconstitutional, the rest is constitutional, although I would direct y'all to consider the implications of the underlined portion as it pertains to immigration.
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
No.
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
Yes, as they have come to be applied. They undermine two values: rule of law, and freedom to determine your own values and, flowing from those, who you associate with.
**********************************************************
QUOTE(turnea)
Mandating that a renter base all rental decisions on a rational basis rather than personal bigotry is I think a necessary restriction as much shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Well, one of the problems you have is enforcement. To apply the law equally, you must also punish every rental seeker (as opposed to just rental sellers) who makes decisions on any basis other than "rational." Just in case you haven't noticed, this is what's known in the political realm as "thought police." **********************************************************
QUOTE(TBKoN)
Nowhere in the Constitution do I see a protection for the right of employers to discriminate against people based on race, religion, gender, etc.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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.
QUOTE
Yes, the market "self-regulated" after what, 75 years of discrimination and racism? And what about the South after Reconstruction? For a century, Blacks were not free to eat at certain restaurants, live in certain parts of town, or work in certain jobs. This did not self-regulate. In fact, I'm not entirely certain that without the civil rights movement (and the Civil Rights Act) there wouldn't still be rampant institutionalized racism in the South.
The market was not able to "self-regulate" because of the distorting effects of Jim Crow laws, aka "rampant institutionalized racism."
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 15 2007, 12:48 PM)
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
From the perspective of some of the board's libertarians and conservatives the answer is absolutely not. Their reasoning seems to be either by inserting themselves into matters of housing, employment and education the government has intruded into the freedom of association, the freedom to enter into contracts and forced an artificial solution upon individuals.
Wrong.
The notion that the free market would have eventually dismantled state sponsored segregation is a myth based upon nothing more than vague speculation. For example, lederuvdapac quotes the late economist Milton Friedman to support his contention that left to its own devices, the demands of the free market would have underdone the system of segregation.
]FRIEDMAN What do you mean by civil rights?
ROBINSON What I mean by civil rights is to take a raw case, the South, under Jim Crow in the 1950's.
FRIEDMAN But that was a case of too much government [ROBINSON It was? But I thought the South in those days had relatively had low tax rates, relatively low regulation...] No, no, but the government provided for a separation. It was the government that enforced separate areas for blacks and whites, it was the government that enforced the law that the blacks had to sit at the back of buses. Those were all government laws!
ROBINSON In the absence of those government laws it wouldn't have taken place? In other words..
FRIEDMAN In the absence of government laws, you would've had a gradual development, it would've taken place somewhere and not everywhere and you would've...look what happened in the north where there weren't those government laws. There may have been, undoubtedly don't misunderstand me, there is prejudice, there's no question, and undoubtedly it has bad affects on various people but in the absence of the laws in the south it would've broken down much faster and much earlier. If you could site any case for libertarianism, that's it. [/i] link
While it is possible, though I believe unlikely, that Friedman is right and without governmental force supporting segregation the system would have eventually come to an end on its own, his "gradual development" solution seems haphazard and vague. What would have been the overriding imperative for private businesses in The South to demand an end to race based segregation? Absent a compelling financial reason for the private sector to suddenly champion desegregation it is questionable what would have driven them to challenge the racial status quo.
Freidman is also shockingly naive in assuming a shot of libertarianism would have squelched segregation in the South. The North segregation existed in employment, housing and education, but it was de facto segregation in the North instead of the de jure segregation practiced in the South.
Allow me to clarify my terms here:
From a legal standpoint, there are two types of segregation which affect preferred racial minorities in the U.S.: de jure segregation and de facto segregation.
De jure segregation means racial separation forced by specific laws. All such laws were eliminated in the U.S. by the mid-1960s. Therefore, today in the U.S. there is no such thing as de jure segregation.
De facto segregation means racial separation that occurs "as a matter of fact", e.g., by housing patterns (where one lives) or by school enrollment (where one goes to school). link2
In other threads it has been said that there is no law the government can pass that can end racism. That misses the purpose of the Civil Rights Era and the subsequent legislation that followed from it. The goal was never to end racism in the hearts and minds of Americans. That is impossible. What is possible is to not permit racists to put their personal prejudices into action by forcing Blacks and other minorities to only attend certain schools, live in certain neighborhoods and only hold certain kinds of jobs.
The utter failure of the free market to offer any redress to individuals denied opportunity and freedom based exclusively upon belonging to a discriminated racial group compelled them to seek other avenues to bypass the free market which had tacitly supported segregation. Perhaps Milton Friedman considered that an outrage and a insult to liberty, but I believe history has vindicated the decision to end de facto and de jure segregation in the U.S.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun nailed it when he said, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."
QUOTE(Bikerdad)
Not according to the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments. Private sector discrimination falls under the heading of "retained rights" and "freedom of association."
You can't really prove anything with the 9th or 10th Amendments. Obviously we don't retain every right not enumerated in the Constitution. So which ones do we retain, and how would one possibly go about deciding that? Do I have the right to use heroin? What about the right to yell fire in a crowded theater? What about the right to club someone over the head with a baseball bat? These are all "rights" that are not specifically addressed in the Constitution. So do I have these rights?
The 9th and 10th Amendments say that we do not give up rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but they don't say that because a right isn't mentioned we have it.
As for the 1st Amendment, you're saying that the right to discriminate is a freedom of association and therefore falls under protected speech of the 1st Amendment? The 1st Amendment does not specifically mention freedom of association, but the Supreme Court has ruled (according to Wikipedia) that "in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join together with others" and that therefore entering into intimate or expressive associations is protected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
The Courts have upheld, however, the ability of the Government to regulate discrimination in private contracts. Of course you don't have to agree with the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, but I would like to hear your reasoning. How does the language of the 1st Amendment protect discrimination?
QUOTE(1st Amendment)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where in those words do you find an absolute guarantee of the freedom of association?
QUOTE(TBKN)
Yes, the market "self-regulated" after what, 75 years of discrimination and racism? And what about the South after Reconstruction? For a century, Blacks were not free to eat at certain restaurants, live in certain parts of town, or work in certain jobs. This did not self-regulate. In fact, I'm not entirely certain that without the civil rights movement (and the Civil Rights Act) there wouldn't still be rampant institutionalized racism in the South.
Thought we were talking about the Irish? But anyway, the 75 years of Jim Crow was a result of government laws! It was the government that allowed the horrors of the Jim Crow era to continue with no hindrance to those perpetrating it. It was government laws that prevented blacks from voting and giving someone they like actual power. It was government laws that violated their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There was no opportunity for self-regulation.
QUOTE(TBKN)
As much as I love basic free market economic theory, it all rests on an important assumption: that people act rationally in their own interest. Unfortunately this isn't always true. People aren't always rational. People have irrational prejudices that are actually detrimental to their own interests, the interests of the people they discriminate against, and the interests of the market and society as a whole.
You're right. Not everyone is rational. But think for a minute. If one person decides to act against their own financial interest, does that mean they're competitor will? Thats what the market does. You are compelled to do what is best for your business because your competitor will do what you fail to do and push you out.
QUOTE(TBKN)
If you're an anarchist, you're free to write all about how the world would be better without any governments. If you're a racist, you're free to talk all about how much better the world would be if blacks couldn't get certain jobs. But it's against the law for that anarchist to actually try to violently overthrow the government, and it's against the law for that racist to actually keep blacks from getting jobs.
But we are talking about two different types of harm that I iterated earlier. Overthrowing the government would require positive harm, actually injuring someone physically. Denying someone a job on the basis of race or any other factor is negative harm, meaning that you are putting that person in a position worse off than if you gave them the job.
QUOTE(turnea)
The markets are not a force to combat social ills like racism, that is expecting capitalism to do something it was never designed to do. The point is to maximize profits. Predatory leasing rates to blacks do just that.
The government is not a force to combat social ills. It is a coercive instrument by which it forces other to adhere to the morality of a majority of people (see nearly every authoritarian government of the 20th century). I wouldnt say that capitalism is a force to combat socials ills but rather it makes most social ills irrelevant. When a factory worker builds a car, they have no idea who they are making the car for. They do not know if the person is white, black, brown, or purple poka-dot. All they know is that the car will be sold and that they will receive a salary based on those cars being sold. To give another example, if one businessman is a racist and his competitor is not...who is going to benefit most? The non-racist who has a much larger market for selling his goods. The racist would only be hurting himself and he would lose out to his competitor unless he changes his ways. So, out of necessity he must deal with people he doesnt like.
QUOTE(turnea)
In addition most racists showed very clearly they were wiling to take a financial loss to uphold segregation in the South. Even when laws were not an issue. Business can survive without one or two demographics just fine.
Perhaps this was true in the early 20th century (we can never really know since the market was never given a chance with all the institutionalized racism), but this is not true today, even in the South. If Nike decided not to sell their products to black people any more, the profits of competitors like Reebok and Adidas would shoot up astronomically.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
From the perspective of some of the board's libertarians and conservatives the answer is absolutely not. Their reasoning seems to be either by inserting themselves into matters of housing, employment and education the government has intruded into the freedom of association, the freedom to enter into contracts and forced an artificial solution upon individuals.
Wrong.
Wrong.
You say its wrong but fail to explain how it DOES NOT intrude on ones right of association or freedom to enter into contracts.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
While it is possible, though I believe unlikely, that Friedman is right and without governmental force supporting segregation the system would have eventually come to an end on its own, his "gradual development" solution seems haphazard and vague. What would have been the overriding imperative for private businesses in The South to demand an end to race based segregation? Absent a compelling financial reason for the private sector to suddenly champion desegregation it is questionable what would have driven them to challenge the racial status quo.
The overriding imperative is simply population. The more people that are able to purchase goods, the more profits. Even more importantly was that Jim Crow prevented blacks from becoming overly successful in creating their own businesses that catered to black interests. Every time they concentrated in a town and became somewhat prosperous, the townsfolk destroyed everything they built. This is due to institutionalized racism and a breakdown of the rule of law...by the government. It doesn't seem to be haphazard or vague in any way...particularly when it occurred with the millions of immigrants that flooded the country in the early 20th century. Irish, Italians, Polish, Germans, Jews, Asians. These immigrants were able to prosper because there were no institutionalized barriers. While I will admit that it is speculation that segregation would have ended quicker if the market was in place instead of institutionalized racism, I think that the evidence in other circumstances show a positive chance.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
In other threads it has been said that there is no law the government can pass that can end racism. That misses the purpose of the Civil Rights Era and the subsequent legislation that followed from it. The goal was never to end racism in the hearts and minds of Americans. That is impossible. What is possible is to not permit racists to put their personal prejudices into action by forcing Blacks and other minorities to only attend certain schools, live in certain neighborhoods and only hold certain kinds of jobs.
Comparing the context of early immigrants of the 20th century with that of blacks is certainly not an perfectly analogous comparison. But that doesnt mean that there are not similarities. I do believe that if there were no Jim Crow laws that the market along with the rule of law would have enabled blacks to prosper at a better rate than they did. The government should have been protecting their rights, but they were the ultimate instrument of oppression.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
The utter failure of the free market to offer any redress to individuals denied opportunity and freedom based exclusively upon belonging to a discriminated racial group compelled them to seek other avenues to bypass the free market which had tacitly supported segregation. Perhaps Milton Friedman considered that an outrage and a insult to liberty, but I believe history has vindicated the decision to end de facto and de jure segregation in the U.S.
But you are wrong nighttimer in that the market was never given a fair chance. Look at Atlanta during the Reconstruction. This was a city where blacks were actually doing relatively well. They did it on their own with no help from anyone. Then they had the riots in 1906 where the government failed to protect their rights and instead participated in their destruction. We went from Jim Crow - Civil Rights legislation. There was no time period where the market was able to prove its usefulness. However, there is evidence that when blacks were not oppressed by the government that they were able to use capitalism to their advantage.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun nailed it when he said, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."
..........the only way to describe that statement is to use a word not allowed on these boards. We get beyond racism by treating people of different races differently. Thats Orwellian newspeak and I do not buy it for a second.
QUOTE(turnea)
The markets are not a force to combat social ills like racism, that is expecting capitalism to do something it was never designed to do. The point is to maximize profits. Predatory leasing rates to blacks do just that.
In addition most racists showed very clearly they were wiling to take a financial loss to uphold segregation in the South. Even when laws were not an issue. Business can survive without one or two demographics just fine.
In addition most racists showed very clearly they were wiling to take a financial loss to uphold segregation in the South. Even when laws were not an issue. Business can survive without one or two demographics just fine.
In the case of predatory leasing practices let me explain how the free market prevents it. Assume I am a racist, I will not rent to a black man for less than $1200 a month what I would rent to a white man for $1000. The extra $200 overcomes my prejudices. Unfortunately, a less prejudiced person than myself will undercut me, this person is not a racist or a saint, he is a pure capitalist. He will rent to the black man for $1175. Sadly, for this pure capitalist, there are other pure capitalists who will undercut him untill we get to the point where there is no excess profit to renting to the black man. The free market at work.
Your second point...Why were Jim Crow laws required to enforce segregation? The reason is the racists rightfully feared the free market, greedy individuals just looking for a buck, would end segregation.
Jim Crow:
QUOTE
Nurses No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men are placed. Alabama
Buses All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races. Alabama
Railroads The conductor of each passenger train is authorized and required to assign each passenger to the car or the division of the car, when it is divided by a partition, designated for the race to which such passenger belongs. Alabama
Restaurants It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama
Pool and Billiard Rooms It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other at any game of pool or billiards. Alabama
Toilet Facilities, Male Every employer of white or negro males shall provide for such white or negro males reasonably accessible and separate toilet facilities. Alabama
Intermarriage The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu shall be null and void. Arizona
Intermarriage All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited. Florida
Cohabitation Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve (12) months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred ($500.00) dollars. Florida
Education The schools for white children and the schools for negro children shall be conducted separately. Florida
Juvenile Delinquents There shall be separate buildings, not nearer than one fourth mile to each other, one for white boys and one for negro boys. White boys and negro boys shall not, in any manner, be associated together or worked together. Florida
Mental Hospitals The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together. Georgia
Intermarriage It shall be unlawful for a white person to marry anyone except a white person. Any marriage in violation of this section shall be void. Georgia
Barbers No colored barber shall serve as a barber [to] white women or girls. Georgia
Burial The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons. Georgia
Restaurants All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license. Georgia
Amateur Baseball It shall be unlawful for any amateur white baseball team to play baseball on any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of a playground devoted to the Negro race, and it shall be unlawful for any amateur colored baseball team to play baseball in any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of any playground devoted to the white race. Georgia
Parks It shall be unlawful for colored people to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the benefit, use and enjoyment of white persons...and unlawful for any white person to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the use and benefit of colored persons. Georgia
Wine and Beer All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time. Georgia
Reform Schools The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other. Kentucky
Circus Tickets All circuses, shows, and tent exhibitions, to which the attendance of...more than one race is invited or expected to attend shall provide for the convenience of its patrons not less than two ticket offices with individual ticket sellers, and not less than two entrances to the said performance, with individual ticket takers and receivers, and in the case of outside or tent performances, the said ticket offices shall not be less than twenty-five (25) feet apart. Louisiana
Housing Any person...who shall rent any part of any such building to a negro person or a negro family when such building is already in whole or in part in occupancy by a white person or white family, or vice versa when the building is in occupancy by a negro person or negro family, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25.00) nor more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars or be imprisoned not less than 10, or more than 60 days, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Louisiana
The Blind The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race. Louisiana
Intermarriage All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, or between a white person and a member of the Malay race; or between the negro a nd a member of the Malay race; or between a person of Negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, and a member of the Malay race, are forever prohibited, and shall be void. Maryland
Railroads All railroad companies and corporations, and all persons running or operating cars or coaches by steam on any railroad line or track in the State of Maryland, for the transportation of passengers, are hereby required to provide separate cars or coaches for the travel and transportation of the white and colored passengers. Maryland
Education Separate schools shall be maintained for the children of the white and colored races. Mississippi
Promotion of Equality Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine or not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. Mississippi
Intermarriage The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. Mississippi
Hospital Entrances There shall be maintained by the governing authorities of every hospital maintained by the state for treatment of white and colored patients separate entrances for white and colored patients and visitors, and such entrances shall be used by the race only for which they are prepared. Mississippi
Prisons The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the negro convicts. Mississippi
Education Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school. Missouri
Intermarriage All marriages between...white persons and negroes or white persons and Mongolians...are prohibited and declared absolutely void...No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood. Missouri
Education Separate rooms [shall] be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and [when] said rooms are so provided, such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent. New Mexico
Textbooks Books shall not be interchangeable between the white and colored schools, but shall continue to be used by the race first using them. North Carolina
Libraries The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals. North Carolina
Militia The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization.No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available, and while white permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers. North Carolina
Transportation The...Utilities Commission...is empowered and directed to require the establishment of separate waiting rooms at all stations for the white and colored races. North Carolina
Teaching Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each offense. Oklahoma
Fishing, Boating, and Bathing The [Conservation] Commission shall have the right to make segregation of the white and colored races as to the exercise of rights of fishing, boating and bathing. Oklahoma
Mining The baths and lockers for the negroes shall be separate from the white race, but may be in the same building. Oklahoma
Telephone Booths The Corporation Commission is hereby vested with power and authority to require telephone companies...to maintain separate booths for white and colored patrons when there is a demand for such separate booths. That the Corporation Commission shall determine the necessity for said separate booths only upon complaint of the people in the town and vicinity to be served after due hearing as now provided by law in other complaints filed with the Corporation Commission. Oklahoma
Lunch Counters No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter. South Carolina
Child Custody It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a negro. South Carolina
Libraries Any white person of such county may use the county free library under the rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioners court and may be entitled to all the privileges thereof. Said court shall make proper provision for the negroes of said county to be served through a separate branch or branches of the county free library, which shall be administered by [a] custodian of the negro race under the supervision of the county librarian. Texas
Education [The County Board of Education] shall provide schools of two kinds; those for white children and those for colored children. Texas
Theaters Every person...operating...any public hall, theatre, opera house, motion picture show or any place of public entertainment or public assemblage which is attended by both white and colored persons, shall separate the white race and the colored race and shall set apart and designate...certain seats therein to be occupied by white persons and a portion thereof , or certain seats therein, to be occupied by colored persons. Virginia
Railroads The conductors or managers on all such railroads shall have power, and are hereby required, to assign to each white or colored passenger his or her respective car, coach or compartment. If the passenger fails to disclose his race, the conductor and managers, acting in good faith, shall be the sole judges of his race. Virginia
Intermarriage All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mulattos, Mongolians, or Malaya hereafter contracted in the State of Wyoming are and shall be illegal and void. Wyoming
Buses All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races. Alabama
Railroads The conductor of each passenger train is authorized and required to assign each passenger to the car or the division of the car, when it is divided by a partition, designated for the race to which such passenger belongs. Alabama
Restaurants It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama
Pool and Billiard Rooms It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other at any game of pool or billiards. Alabama
Toilet Facilities, Male Every employer of white or negro males shall provide for such white or negro males reasonably accessible and separate toilet facilities. Alabama
Intermarriage The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu shall be null and void. Arizona
Intermarriage All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited. Florida
Cohabitation Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve (12) months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred ($500.00) dollars. Florida
Education The schools for white children and the schools for negro children shall be conducted separately. Florida
Juvenile Delinquents There shall be separate buildings, not nearer than one fourth mile to each other, one for white boys and one for negro boys. White boys and negro boys shall not, in any manner, be associated together or worked together. Florida
Mental Hospitals The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together. Georgia
Intermarriage It shall be unlawful for a white person to marry anyone except a white person. Any marriage in violation of this section shall be void. Georgia
Barbers No colored barber shall serve as a barber [to] white women or girls. Georgia
Burial The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons. Georgia
Restaurants All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license. Georgia
Amateur Baseball It shall be unlawful for any amateur white baseball team to play baseball on any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of a playground devoted to the Negro race, and it shall be unlawful for any amateur colored baseball team to play baseball in any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of any playground devoted to the white race. Georgia
Parks It shall be unlawful for colored people to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the benefit, use and enjoyment of white persons...and unlawful for any white person to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the use and benefit of colored persons. Georgia
Wine and Beer All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time. Georgia
Reform Schools The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other. Kentucky
Circus Tickets All circuses, shows, and tent exhibitions, to which the attendance of...more than one race is invited or expected to attend shall provide for the convenience of its patrons not less than two ticket offices with individual ticket sellers, and not less than two entrances to the said performance, with individual ticket takers and receivers, and in the case of outside or tent performances, the said ticket offices shall not be less than twenty-five (25) feet apart. Louisiana
Housing Any person...who shall rent any part of any such building to a negro person or a negro family when such building is already in whole or in part in occupancy by a white person or white family, or vice versa when the building is in occupancy by a negro person or negro family, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25.00) nor more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars or be imprisoned not less than 10, or more than 60 days, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Louisiana
The Blind The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race. Louisiana
Intermarriage All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, or between a white person and a member of the Malay race; or between the negro a nd a member of the Malay race; or between a person of Negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, and a member of the Malay race, are forever prohibited, and shall be void. Maryland
Railroads All railroad companies and corporations, and all persons running or operating cars or coaches by steam on any railroad line or track in the State of Maryland, for the transportation of passengers, are hereby required to provide separate cars or coaches for the travel and transportation of the white and colored passengers. Maryland
Education Separate schools shall be maintained for the children of the white and colored races. Mississippi
Promotion of Equality Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine or not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. Mississippi
Intermarriage The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. Mississippi
Hospital Entrances There shall be maintained by the governing authorities of every hospital maintained by the state for treatment of white and colored patients separate entrances for white and colored patients and visitors, and such entrances shall be used by the race only for which they are prepared. Mississippi
Prisons The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the negro convicts. Mississippi
Education Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school. Missouri
Intermarriage All marriages between...white persons and negroes or white persons and Mongolians...are prohibited and declared absolutely void...No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood. Missouri
Education Separate rooms [shall] be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and [when] said rooms are so provided, such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent. New Mexico
Textbooks Books shall not be interchangeable between the white and colored schools, but shall continue to be used by the race first using them. North Carolina
Libraries The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals. North Carolina
Militia The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization.No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available, and while white permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers. North Carolina
Transportation The...Utilities Commission...is empowered and directed to require the establishment of separate waiting rooms at all stations for the white and colored races. North Carolina
Teaching Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each offense. Oklahoma
Fishing, Boating, and Bathing The [Conservation] Commission shall have the right to make segregation of the white and colored races as to the exercise of rights of fishing, boating and bathing. Oklahoma
Mining The baths and lockers for the negroes shall be separate from the white race, but may be in the same building. Oklahoma
Telephone Booths The Corporation Commission is hereby vested with power and authority to require telephone companies...to maintain separate booths for white and colored patrons when there is a demand for such separate booths. That the Corporation Commission shall determine the necessity for said separate booths only upon complaint of the people in the town and vicinity to be served after due hearing as now provided by law in other complaints filed with the Corporation Commission. Oklahoma
Lunch Counters No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter. South Carolina
Child Custody It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a negro. South Carolina
Libraries Any white person of such county may use the county free library under the rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioners court and may be entitled to all the privileges thereof. Said court shall make proper provision for the negroes of said county to be served through a separate branch or branches of the county free library, which shall be administered by [a] custodian of the negro race under the supervision of the county librarian. Texas
Education [The County Board of Education] shall provide schools of two kinds; those for white children and those for colored children. Texas
Theaters Every person...operating...any public hall, theatre, opera house, motion picture show or any place of public entertainment or public assemblage which is attended by both white and colored persons, shall separate the white race and the colored race and shall set apart and designate...certain seats therein to be occupied by white persons and a portion thereof , or certain seats therein, to be occupied by colored persons. Virginia
Railroads The conductors or managers on all such railroads shall have power, and are hereby required, to assign to each white or colored passenger his or her respective car, coach or compartment. If the passenger fails to disclose his race, the conductor and managers, acting in good faith, shall be the sole judges of his race. Virginia
Intermarriage All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mulattos, Mongolians, or Malaya hereafter contracted in the State of Wyoming are and shall be illegal and void. Wyoming
Why were all these laws needed? I know the answer---the dangers, to the racist, of the free market.
Ya see the tyranny that can result when a basic natural law is violated? When a mere majority can do as it pleases?
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 15 2007, 10:21 PM)
The government is not a force to combat social ills. It is a coercive instrument by which it forces other to adhere to the morality of a majority of people (see nearly every authoritarian government of the 20th century). I wouldnt say that capitalism is a force to combat socials ills but rather it makes most social ills irrelevant. When a factory worker builds a car, they have no idea who they are making the car for. They do not know if the person is white, black, brown, or purple poka-dot. All they know is that the car will be sold and that they will receive a salary based on those cars being sold. To give another example, if one businessman is a racist and his competitor is not...who is going to benefit most? The non-racist who has a much larger market for selling his goods. The racist would only be hurting himself and he would lose out to his competitor unless he changes his ways. So, out of necessity he must deal with people he doesnt like.
If the government is used as a force to enforce social ills such as racial segregation, why can't it be used as a force to remedy social ills as well?
If citizens are allowed to petition their elected officials for redress, how are the forms of redress to be applied if it does not have the authority of government behind it. The role of the government is not merely to stand aside and look on while the free market does its thing. When the free market oversteps its boundries, someone has to have the big stick to whap it back in line. Unbridled capitalism at its worse does not make social ills irrelevant. It merely centralizes power, wealth and influence in the hands of a select few to the detriment and exploitation of the many.
You've used this "Businessman A is a racist and Businessman B is not which means the non-racist businessman will win out" metaphor before lederuvdapac, but I think you are not considering the intrinsic weakness. One is that racism is often very subtle and not easily detected. Consumers aren't always armed with the knowledge that the owner of the business or service they're patronizing hates Blacks, Asians, or Hispanics. A company that may not be willing to hire African-Americans as employees or managers may be willing to hire them as part of the janitorial crew. Being able to say you employ some minorities isn't the same thing as saying they have equal opportunity.
Two, if I follow your line of thinking that while racism is bad, being a racist is perfectly acceptable, wouldn't that mean that if I happen to produce DVD players and my competition is still producing VCRs, as the manufacturer of the superior and preferred format won't I win because I'm selling the product the consumer prefers? Won't my superior product compensate for being a horrible bigot? Capitalism is driven more by the worship of The Great God Profit than issues of morality and social justice.
If not for the federal government intercession President Eisenhower would not have called out to protect the Negro students in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Supreme Court would have refused to hear Brown v. Board of Education. The FBI would have never been called in to investigate the disappearance of Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner. President Johnson would never have signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
While it is possible, though I believe unlikely, that Friedman is right and without governmental force supporting segregation the system would have eventually come to an end on its own, his "gradual development" solution seems haphazard and vague. What would have been the overriding imperative for private businesses in The South to demand an end to race based segregation? Absent a compelling financial reason for the private sector to suddenly champion desegregation it is questionable what would have driven them to challenge the racial status quo.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
The overriding imperative is simply population. The more people that are able to purchase goods, the more profits. Even more importantly was that Jim Crow prevented blacks from becoming overly successful in creating their own businesses that catered to black interests. Every time they concentrated in a town and became somewhat prosperous, the townsfolk destroyed everything they built. This is due to institutionalized racism and a breakdown of the rule of law...by the government. It doesn't seem to be haphazard or vague in any way...particularly when it occurred with the millions of immigrants that flooded the country in the early 20th century. Irish, Italians, Polish, Germans, Jews, Asians. These immigrants were able to prosper because there were no institutionalized barriers. While I will admit that it is speculation that segregation would have ended quicker if the market was in place instead of institutionalized racism, I think that the evidence in other circumstances show a positive chance.
The experience of Blacks as an oppressed minority is entirely unique and separate from that of the Irish, Italians, Poles, Germans, Jews and Asians. All of those groups came here voluntary. They came with the family structure intact along with their customs, language and history. There was no systematic attempt made to disenfranchise ethic groups from concentrating their economic power within their own neighborhoods.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
In other threads it has been said that there is no law the government can pass that can end racism. That misses the purpose of the Civil Rights Era and the subsequent legislation that followed from it. The goal was never to end racism in the hearts and minds of Americans. That is impossible. What is possible is to not permit racists to put their personal prejudices into action by forcing Blacks and other minorities to only attend certain schools, live in certain neighborhoods and only hold certain kinds of jobs.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
Comparing the context of early immigrants of the 20th century with that of blacks is certainly not an perfectly analogous comparison. But that doesnt mean that there are not similarities. I do believe that if there were no Jim Crow laws that the market along with the rule of law would have enabled blacks to prosper at a better rate than they did. The government should have been protecting their rights, but they were the ultimate instrument of oppression.
Yeah well, hindsight is 20/20, ain't it? Jim Crow laws, The Black Codes and other manifestations of racism and White supremacy did exist and the mighty marketplace was complicit, impotent and silent. Yes, the government SHOULD have been protecting the rights of Black Americans, but it took years of blood, death, oppression and worse before the resistance to racism build up enough momentum to subvert the dominant paradigm.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
The utter failure of the free market to offer any redress to individuals denied opportunity and freedom based exclusively upon belonging to a discriminated racial group compelled them to seek other avenues to bypass the free market which had tacitly supported segregation. Perhaps Milton Friedman considered that an outrage and a insult to liberty, but I believe history has vindicated the decision to end de facto and de jure segregation in the U.S.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
But you are wrong nighttimer in that the market was never given a fair chance. Look at Atlanta during the Reconstruction. This was a city where blacks were actually doing relatively well. They did it on their own with no help from anyone. Then they had the riots in 1906 where the government failed to protect their rights and instead participated in their destruction. We went from Jim Crow - Civil Rights legislation. There was no time period where the market was able to prove its usefulness. However, there is evidence that when blacks were not oppressed by the government that they were able to use capitalism to their advantage.
Really? And what accounts for the failure of the market to prove its usefulness? Who were these bright-eyed futurists who could see there was no future in state sponsored segregation and civil rights for Blacks was the way forward?
I would be very interested if you could provide some examples of your evidence that when Blacks were not oppressed by the government that they were able to use capitalism to their advantage. There are numerous examples of the contrary demonstrating how capitalism was used to oppress Blacks and suppress their advancement.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun nailed it when he said, "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently".
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
..........the only way to describe that statement is to use a word not allowed on these boards. We get beyond racism by treating people of different races differently. Thats Orwellian newspeak and I do not buy it for a second.
You're free to "not buy it for a second" but the government, the legislative and the courts were the ones who stepped up under duress to move the nation out of the darkness of institutional racism.
Are the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1968 constitutional? Can the federal government regulate private-sector discrimination?
Hamilton and Jefferson had a debate in earnest in there careers about whether the Constitution was to be interpreted strictly (or using the methodology of fundamentalism) or whether it was to be interpreted broadly. By the end of the Jefferson administration it was essentially set in practice that the text of the Constitution was to be interpreted to grant powers broader than the limited text of the Constitution allowed for and that every government act not specifically allowed for by the Constitution was not going to need a new amendment to allow it. Hamilton won. Long ago.
Do private citizens have the unfettered right to discriminate against others? Is discrimination one of the privileges and immunities granted to the citizens of the United States? Is the loss of ability to discriminate against others the loss of a citizen's Constitutional rights? Even before the 14th Amendment I don't see a right to discriminate being embedded in our national law.
These federal laws as referred to in the opening post of this thread provide equal protection under the law in terms of protecting individuals from discrimination of certain kinds when they seek housing. I am not sure what private-sector discrimination is, but I don't see a convincing Constitutional interpretation that prohibits the federal government from protecting the citizens of the United States from discrimination.
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
The federal government should do all in its power to drive discrimination out of our lives. It is an insidious and divisive force that does try to lead to real multi-culturalism and then to separation movements. If governments can drive smokers from buildings and place taxes on transactions inside a business that serves the public., if government can use eminent domain to take property from an individual, then government must have the power to say you can not discriminate based on race etc.
With all due respect to pure libertarianism, this is a dangerous area to begin to roll back the power of the omnipresent federal government. The realm of the public-private divide has vast swaths of public and small patches of private.
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
These restrictions are keeping the minority who would like to spew racism in the open from causing irreparable harm to the American social fabric.
Hamilton and Jefferson had a debate in earnest in there careers about whether the Constitution was to be interpreted strictly (or using the methodology of fundamentalism) or whether it was to be interpreted broadly. By the end of the Jefferson administration it was essentially set in practice that the text of the Constitution was to be interpreted to grant powers broader than the limited text of the Constitution allowed for and that every government act not specifically allowed for by the Constitution was not going to need a new amendment to allow it. Hamilton won. Long ago.
Do private citizens have the unfettered right to discriminate against others? Is discrimination one of the privileges and immunities granted to the citizens of the United States? Is the loss of ability to discriminate against others the loss of a citizen's Constitutional rights? Even before the 14th Amendment I don't see a right to discriminate being embedded in our national law.
These federal laws as referred to in the opening post of this thread provide equal protection under the law in terms of protecting individuals from discrimination of certain kinds when they seek housing. I am not sure what private-sector discrimination is, but I don't see a convincing Constitutional interpretation that prohibits the federal government from protecting the citizens of the United States from discrimination.
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
The federal government should do all in its power to drive discrimination out of our lives. It is an insidious and divisive force that does try to lead to real multi-culturalism and then to separation movements. If governments can drive smokers from buildings and place taxes on transactions inside a business that serves the public., if government can use eminent domain to take property from an individual, then government must have the power to say you can not discriminate based on race etc.
With all due respect to pure libertarianism, this is a dangerous area to begin to roll back the power of the omnipresent federal government. The realm of the public-private divide has vast swaths of public and small patches of private.
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
These restrictions are keeping the minority who would like to spew racism in the open from causing irreparable harm to the American social fabric.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 15 2007, 09:21 PM)
Leder[/b], and I generally do respect your opinions and credibility, I think you have a lot to learn about this area of history. I also think you are warping market theory to fit your interests. The market will adapt to the social conditions and amorally seek out maximum profits. The market does not create social conditions.
I used this snippet as representative of your take on history that has government impeding the market from creating a racism free world in the United States. You brought up Atlanta and pointed to a period of prosperity that you say was ended by the arrival of Jim Crow laws. What do you think really happened in the South from the end of Reconstruction (1876) to the beginning of the passage of Jim Crow laws? The rising popularity of Populism in the 1890s threatened to create a political alliance of poor whites and poor blacks in the South that would end the one-party Democratic rule in the South.
There was a clear social code in the South that African Americans grew to learn to abide by or else. This code was enforced by custom. Afraid that poor whites and blacks might find common ground in the populist political movement, many states passed laws that legally solidified what had been put in place in custom previously. In many places in the South, the ability to vote was not actually restricted by law for blacks. Blacks were simply not to vote. White registrars would not register them. And there would be repercussions for those who did not know their place.
In the case of predatory leasing practices let me explain how the free market prevents it. Assume I am a racist, I will not rent to a black man for less than $1200 a month what I would rent to a white man for $1000. The extra $200 overcomes my prejudices. Unfortunately, a less prejudiced person than myself will undercut me, this person is not a racist or a saint, he is a pure capitalist. He will rent to the black man for $1175. Sadly, for this pure capitalist, there are other pure capitalists who will undercut him untill we get to the point where there is no excess profit to renting to the black man. The free market at work.
Well let me explain to you how racist housing markets economics work. By custom or by law people of a certain color are not supposed to be in a certain area. Those that find the landlord who takes the extra $200 to rent to a person that the community deems unacceptable now has to worry about damage to property. The renters who violate the racist social code risk vandalism, physical attacks, and verbal abuse. Usually the racist status quo would prevail. An black renter say in the land of Richard Wright's Native Son in Chicago, then found a limited area to find housing and probably almost none available for purchase. Since the amount of ghetto housing units was limited, then the costs of that housing, even though it was often substandard, was inflated. Additionally other costs in the ghetto were higher than they should have been as the more efficient retailers tended to not open for business in areas convenient to these ghettos. So white slum lords could get high rents for illegal housing and tell blacks to take it or leave it. When they left, they were driven back.
In short one fire ruins your pure capitalist's bottom line in your example. And the rest of the pure capitalists in the area get the point. When William Levitt prohibited blacks from purchasing his homes that revolutionized the American housing market, it was because it increased his sales.
This thread sure has been a sad read, I hope
rebounds strongly and stops looking like the Libertarian John Birch society.
I used this snippet as representative of your take on history that has government impeding the market from creating a racism free world in the United States. You brought up Atlanta and pointed to a period of prosperity that you say was ended by the arrival of Jim Crow laws. What do you think really happened in the South from the end of Reconstruction (1876) to the beginning of the passage of Jim Crow laws? The rising popularity of Populism in the 1890s threatened to create a political alliance of poor whites and poor blacks in the South that would end the one-party Democratic rule in the South.
There was a clear social code in the South that African Americans grew to learn to abide by or else. This code was enforced by custom. Afraid that poor whites and blacks might find common ground in the populist political movement, many states passed laws that legally solidified what had been put in place in custom previously. In many places in the South, the ability to vote was not actually restricted by law for blacks. Blacks were simply not to vote. White registrars would not register them. And there would be repercussions for those who did not know their place.
QUOTE(deng @ Jul 15 2007, 09:55 PM)
In the case of predatory leasing practices let me explain how the free market prevents it. Assume I am a racist, I will not rent to a black man for less than $1200 a month what I would rent to a white man for $1000. The extra $200 overcomes my prejudices. Unfortunately, a less prejudiced person than myself will undercut me, this person is not a racist or a saint, he is a pure capitalist. He will rent to the black man for $1175. Sadly, for this pure capitalist, there are other pure capitalists who will undercut him untill we get to the point where there is no excess profit to renting to the black man. The free market at work.
Well let me explain to you how racist housing markets economics work. By custom or by law people of a certain color are not supposed to be in a certain area. Those that find the landlord who takes the extra $200 to rent to a person that the community deems unacceptable now has to worry about damage to property. The renters who violate the racist social code risk vandalism, physical attacks, and verbal abuse. Usually the racist status quo would prevail. An black renter say in the land of Richard Wright's Native Son in Chicago, then found a limited area to find housing and probably almost none available for purchase. Since the amount of ghetto housing units was limited, then the costs of that housing, even though it was often substandard, was inflated. Additionally other costs in the ghetto were higher than they should have been as the more efficient retailers tended to not open for business in areas convenient to these ghettos. So white slum lords could get high rents for illegal housing and tell blacks to take it or leave it. When they left, they were driven back.
In short one fire ruins your pure capitalist's bottom line in your example. And the rest of the pure capitalists in the area get the point. When William Levitt prohibited blacks from purchasing his homes that revolutionized the American housing market, it was because it increased his sales.
This thread sure has been a sad read, I hope
rebounds strongly and stops looking like the Libertarian John Birch society.
I get very tired of the argument that somehow free markets are the cure for all possible ills. They aren't, becuase in the entirety of human history, the kind of perfect free market that all of the economic theorists and political free-marketeers hold up as the shining example has never existed.
A notional perfectly free market REQUIRES that all parties have pefect information BEFORE any transaction takes place - this is more than a tad undermined by the notion of commercial confidentiality. In such a free market, why would advertising and promotion be remotely necessary? All potential purchasers would already know everything they could possibly want to know about all the products and services that could meet their needs, so they wouldn't need to be advertised to, would they? And if the free market worked best when self-regulated, there wouldn't be laws requiring that advertising didn't make false claims, or laws requiring that food products met certain standards (non-adulteration being one of the eariliest). Such regulations demonstrate that totally free markets work BETTER whe they are regulated.
Like governments, markets should be the servants of the people, not their masters. If untrammelled free markets put poisons into foods because they are cheaper, cause addiction to the product, have some flavour-enhancing property, or some other profit-maximising or sales-increasing effect - that maximises short term profit but minimises long-term profit (because customers have shorter relationships with the business, on the basis of being dead). Unregulated free markets HAVE done this in the past.
A notional, perfectly free market REQUIRES that all the parties conduct their transactions based only on rationality. But what if the bulk of the available penetrable market holds an irrational view. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they don't like black people and don't want to live near them. If I'm a house builder, it doesn't much matter what I think of black people; I will make less money if I sell houses to them because they are in a minority, and because if I do, I cut down my chances of selling to the black-hating majority. Even as a niche market, blacks were unattractive to even the most enlightened businesses because their relative economic disadvantage made them less likely to be able to afford to buy the kind of premium-priced products & services that most businesses, given a free choice, would prefer to provide.
Are the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1968 constitutional? Can the federal government regulate private-sector discrimination?
Clearly they are able to - they do. And my understanding of the US Constitution is such that something is only unconstitutional if the USSC says that it is. Since they have not said that about these two Acts, they are constitutional.
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
They government should regulate the private sector, full stop (or period, if you prefer). Markets do not work effectively or equably without regulation. If you think they do, then presumably you are excluding the laws which provide for the enforcement of contracts, which only exist because governments have enacted them and can only be enforced through government-funded and regulated legal systems. This may be convenient to your case, but it doesn't bear close examination. It's true that governments threaten freedoms, but they are also the last line of defence in guaranteeing freedoms. Markets don't care whether their participants are free or not, so long as money gets made somehow.
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
From what? Mainstream American culture is not under any significant threat as far as I can tell. Like all cultures, it is evolving over time, and stopping that evolution would involve restricting the freedom of individuals within the culture to pick and choose which parts of it they want to sustain and develop, and which they want to ignore or destroy.
A notional perfectly free market REQUIRES that all parties have pefect information BEFORE any transaction takes place - this is more than a tad undermined by the notion of commercial confidentiality. In such a free market, why would advertising and promotion be remotely necessary? All potential purchasers would already know everything they could possibly want to know about all the products and services that could meet their needs, so they wouldn't need to be advertised to, would they? And if the free market worked best when self-regulated, there wouldn't be laws requiring that advertising didn't make false claims, or laws requiring that food products met certain standards (non-adulteration being one of the eariliest). Such regulations demonstrate that totally free markets work BETTER whe they are regulated.
Like governments, markets should be the servants of the people, not their masters. If untrammelled free markets put poisons into foods because they are cheaper, cause addiction to the product, have some flavour-enhancing property, or some other profit-maximising or sales-increasing effect - that maximises short term profit but minimises long-term profit (because customers have shorter relationships with the business, on the basis of being dead). Unregulated free markets HAVE done this in the past.
A notional, perfectly free market REQUIRES that all the parties conduct their transactions based only on rationality. But what if the bulk of the available penetrable market holds an irrational view. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they don't like black people and don't want to live near them. If I'm a house builder, it doesn't much matter what I think of black people; I will make less money if I sell houses to them because they are in a minority, and because if I do, I cut down my chances of selling to the black-hating majority. Even as a niche market, blacks were unattractive to even the most enlightened businesses because their relative economic disadvantage made them less likely to be able to afford to buy the kind of premium-priced products & services that most businesses, given a free choice, would prefer to provide.
Are the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1968 constitutional? Can the federal government regulate private-sector discrimination?
Clearly they are able to - they do. And my understanding of the US Constitution is such that something is only unconstitutional if the USSC says that it is. Since they have not said that about these two Acts, they are constitutional.
Should the government regulate private sector discrimination?
They government should regulate the private sector, full stop (or period, if you prefer). Markets do not work effectively or equably without regulation. If you think they do, then presumably you are excluding the laws which provide for the enforcement of contracts, which only exist because governments have enacted them and can only be enforced through government-funded and regulated legal systems. This may be convenient to your case, but it doesn't bear close examination. It's true that governments threaten freedoms, but they are also the last line of defence in guaranteeing freedoms. Markets don't care whether their participants are free or not, so long as money gets made somehow.
Are these restrictions causing undue harm to the ability of mainstream American culture to defend itself?
From what? Mainstream American culture is not under any significant threat as far as I can tell. Like all cultures, it is evolving over time, and stopping that evolution would involve restricting the freedom of individuals within the culture to pick and choose which parts of it they want to sustain and develop, and which they want to ignore or destroy.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
If the government is used as a force to enforce social ills such as racial segregation, why can't it be used as a force to remedy social ills as well?
Because the only way that government can accomplish such goals is through coercion. If the goals could be accomplished without coercion then there would be no need for the government in the first place. They remedy certain social ills but create entirely new ones by the restrictions they place on individual liberty.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
If citizens are allowed to petition their elected officials for redress, how are the forms of redress to be applied if it does not have the authority of government behind it. The role of the government is not merely to stand aside and look on while the free market does its thing. When the free market oversteps its boundries, someone has to have the big stick to whap it back in line. Unbridled capitalism at its worse does not make social ills irrelevant. It merely centralizes power, wealth and influence in the hands of a select few to the detriment and exploitation of the many.
Capitalism in and of itself is not a positive thing much in the same manner that democracy in and of itself is not a positive thing. For capitalism to be effective, it takes a combination of ideals and institutions in order to be successful. The rule of law, respect for individual rights, and capitalism in combination is the greatest hope for a free society. If you are missing one of those, then it will not be beneficial and predatory capitalism and fascist practices will prevail. However, all working in unison will decentralize power.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
You've used this "Businessman A is a racist and Businessman B is not which means the non-racist businessman will win out" metaphor before lederuvdapac, but I think you are not considering the intrinsic weakness. One is that racism is often very subtle and not easily detected. Consumers aren't always armed with the knowledge that the owner of the business or service they're patronizing hates Blacks, Asians, or Hispanics. A company that may not be willing to hire African-Americans as employees or managers may be willing to hire them as part of the janitorial crew. Being able to say you employ some minorities isn't the same thing as saying they have equal opportunity.
If it is as subtle as you claim, that the public at large does not hear about it and nobody complains about it to the media, then how could you hope to combat it through law?
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Two, if I follow your line of thinking that while racism is bad, being a racist is perfectly acceptable, wouldn't that mean that if I happen to produce DVD players and my competition is still producing VCRs, as the manufacturer of the superior and preferred format won't I win because I'm selling the product the consumer prefers? Won't my superior product compensate for being a horrible bigot? Capitalism is driven more by the worship of The Great God Profit than issues of morality and social justice.
In that horribly skewed analogy, yes you would be correct. If a racist car dealer sold a modern car and a non-racist only sold a Model T, then yes the seller of the more modern car would probably have good business in comparison with the seller of the Model T. However, that person would not have as good business as the non-racist who sells the modern car since he would have a larger market share.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
If not for the federal government intercession President Eisenhower would not have called out to protect the Negro students in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Supreme Court would have refused to hear Brown v. Board of Education. The FBI would have never been called in to investigate the disappearance of Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner. President Johnson would never have signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Right, the government was protecting the rights of individuals in this instance, something they failed to do since the beginning of this republic.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
The experience of Blacks as an oppressed minority is entirely unique and separate from that of the Irish, Italians, Poles, Germans, Jews and Asians. All of those groups came here voluntary. They came with the family structure intact along with their customs, language and history. There was no systematic attempt made to disenfranchise ethic groups from concentrating their economic power within their own neighborhoods.
The experience is certainly different and I would never argue otherwise. The experience of blacks is only comparable probably to Native Americans in US history. However, there are similarities that can be analyzed when it comes to minority and outsiders trying to assimilate into mainstream culture.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Yeah well, hindsight is 20/20, ain't it? Jim Crow laws, The Black Codes and other manifestations of racism and White supremacy did exist and the mighty marketplace was complicit, impotent and silent. Yes, the government SHOULD have been protecting the rights of Black Americans, but it took years of blood, death, oppression and worse before the resistance to racism build up enough momentum to subvert the dominant paradigm.
I would argue that the marketplace was not complicit because a proper marketplace is not restricted from growth. I think Milton Friedman was correct in stating that North is a good example of where there were no Jim Crow laws and the institutionalized racism was less rampant (still there, but not as prominent as the South).
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Really? And what accounts for the failure of the market to prove its usefulness? Who were these bright-eyed futurists who could see there was no future in state sponsored segregation and civil rights for Blacks was the way forward?
I told you. There was never a period where the market was given a chance. It always operated under government regulation. As deng showed, many of the Jim Crow laws were set up in order to keep blacks in poverty and in the slums. They were not afforded the same civil, political and in this case economic rights as everyone else. If there is no protection for individual rights, capitalism cannot succeed.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
I would be very interested if you could provide some examples of your evidence that when Blacks were not oppressed by the government that they were able to use capitalism to their advantage. There are numerous examples of the contrary demonstrating how capitalism was used to oppress Blacks and suppress their advancement.
I can't give you any examples, thats my point. The government restricted their rights at every turn. not giving them the opportunity to succeed. And as i stated, capitalism did oppress blacks only because their individual rights were not protected by the government. To reiterate, the rule of law, respect for individual liberty, and the free market in unison work best to create a free society. If you are missing one, then the others will not work properly.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
You're free to "not buy it for a second" but the government, the legislative and the courts were the ones who stepped up under duress to move the nation out of the darkness of institutional racism.
The government was the one that put the nation in the darkness! Its like you are thanking an arsonist for putting out a fire that he started!
QUOTE(Eeyore)
Leder[/b], and I generally do respect your opinions and credibility, I think you have a lot to learn about this area of history. I also think you are warping market theory to fit your interests. The market will adapt to the social conditions and amorally seek out maximum profits. The market does not create social conditions.
Thank you for the kind words Eeyore and you hit the nail on the head. The market is amoral. Some see amorality as immorality, but that is not the case. The market provides a means for people to get out of poverty and to pursue their own interests free of coercion of other individuals. This is done, ironically by personal greed. Greed makes social factors irrelevant in the pursuit of wealth. That is my point.
QUOTE(Eeyore)
I used this snippet as representative of your take on history that has government impeding the market from creating a racism free world in the United States. You brought up Atlanta and pointed to a period of prosperity that you say was ended by the arrival of Jim Crow laws. What do you think really happened in the South from the end of Reconstruction (1876) to the beginning of the passage of Jim Crow laws? The rising popularity of Populism in the 1890s threatened to create a political alliance of poor whites and poor blacks in the South that would end the one-party Democratic rule in the South.
There was a clear social code in the South that African Americans grew to learn to abide by or else. This code was enforced by custom. Afraid that poor whites and blacks might find common ground in the populist political movement, many states passed laws that legally solidified what had been put in place in custom previously. In many places in the South, the ability to vote was not actually restricted by law for blacks. Blacks were simply not to vote. White registrars would not register them. And there would be repercussions for those who did not know their place.
There was a clear social code in the South that African Americans grew to learn to abide by or else. This code was enforced by custom. Afraid that poor whites and blacks might find common ground in the populist political movement, many states passed laws that legally solidified what had been put in place in custom previously. In many places in the South, the ability to vote was not actually restricted by law for blacks. Blacks were simply not to vote. White registrars would not register them. And there would be repercussions for those who did not know their place.
And it is the fault of the government for not protecting their rights! How could blacks hope to prosper if they could not elect officials in districts where they made up a significant population (especially majorities)? They couldnt. How could they hope to become economically prosperous if the police turned a blind eye to their businesses being burned or their licenses being denied? They couldnt. It was government that restricted their freedom.
QUOTE(Julian)
A notional perfectly free market REQUIRES that all parties have pefect information BEFORE any transaction takes place - this is more than a tad undermined by the notion of commercial confidentiality.
There has never been a 'perfect' free market just as there has never been a 'perfect' socialist, communist, utilitarian, or democratic society.
QUOTE(julian)
In such a free market, why would advertising and promotion be remotely necessary? All potential purchasers would already know everything they could possibly want to know about all the products and services that could meet their needs, so they wouldn't need to be advertised to, would they? And if the free market worked best when self-regulated, there wouldn't be laws requiring that advertising didn't make false claims, or laws requiring that food products met certain standards (non-adulteration being one of the eariliest). Such regulations demonstrate that totally free markets work BETTER whe they are regulated.
People do lie and that is when it is acceptable for government to step in. False information and fraud are serious breaches of the public trust and should be prosecuted. But that doesnt mean that markets work better when they are regulated to the extent that you are probably talking about.
QUOTE(Julian)
Like governments, markets should be the servants of the people, not their masters.
Markets are the servants of the people because supply and demand is dictated by the people.
QUOTE(Julian)
If untrammelled free markets put poisons into foods because they are cheaper, cause addiction to the product, have some flavour-enhancing property, or some other profit-maximising or sales-increasing effect - that maximises short term profit but minimises long-term profit (because customers have shorter relationships with the business, on the basis of being dead). Unregulated free markets HAVE done this in the past.
And how exactly has that worked out for them? Companies that commit fraud and lie about their product are eventually uncovered and face the consequences. Then they are the victims of endless litigation and lawsuits.
QUOTE(Julian)
A notional, perfectly free market REQUIRES that all the parties conduct their transactions based only on rationality. But what if the bulk of the available penetrable market holds an irrational view. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they don't like black people and don't want to live near them. If I'm a house builder, it doesn't much matter what I think of black people; I will make less money if I sell houses to them because they are in a minority, and because if I do, I cut down my chances of selling to the black-hating majority. Even as a niche market, blacks were unattractive to even the most enlightened businesses because their relative economic disadvantage made them less likely to be able to afford to buy the kind of premium-priced products & services that most businesses, given a free choice, would prefer to provide.
And this is a good example so lets dwell on it for a moment. The house builder doesnt necessarily need to be racist but is living in an irrational market. If he sells a house to a black family, he risks having no white families buy the neighboring homes. This is a bad situation no doubt. If no other families are willing to purchase the homes, the builder goes bankrupt. He is harmed because he was coerced into entering a contract with someone whom he knew would hurt his business with other potential buyers. Is that fair? Well of course it isnt. Its not fair for the black family but it also not fair to the home builder who is going to fail because of a law that coerces him into contracts.
QUOTE(Julian)
They government should regulate the private sector, full stop (or period, if you prefer). Markets do not work effectively or equably without regulation. If you think they do, then presumably you are excluding the laws which provide for the enforcement of contracts, which only exist because governments have enacted them and can only be enforced through government-funded and regulated legal systems. This may be convenient to your case, but it doesn't bear close examination. It's true that governments threaten freedoms, but they are also the last line of defence in guaranteeing freedoms. Markets don't care whether their participants are free or not, so long as money gets made somehow.
This just isnt true. Contracts are a necessity for a free market to work. This, along with the prosecution of fraud is well within the realm of government. But overregulation only hinders freedom. Government is not the last line of defense for freedom because it is government itself that is the perpetrator! Finally, markets do not care whether participants are free or not, but they are most efficient and most profitable when people have the economic freedom to spend their money in the manner they wish.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 16 2007, 09:15 AM)
And it is the fault of the government for not protecting their rights! How could blacks hope to prosper if they could not elect officials in districts where they made up a significant population (especially majorities)? They couldnt. How could they hope to become economically prosperous if the police turned a blind eye to their businesses being burned or their licenses being denied? They couldnt. It was government that restricted their freedom.
Okay, here is my point. How does the government protect people from these abuses without laws and law enforcement. What rights are the governments supposed to be protecting in those cases? And if it is the fault of the government then the market must not be sufficiently self-correcting. Why do you have to have a majority to gain influence in government in order to prosper in this self-correcting market? Which freedoms are we going to blame the government for restricting in this thread? The freedom to discriminate in citizen to citizen dealings or the freedom to be protected from discrimination?
Under some of your earlier ideas in this thread is it fair to now argue that government inaction is a restriction of freedom? Because I do agree with that and the government took action for our purposes by trying to end discrimination in housing practices.
QUOTE(Eeyore)
Okay, here is my point. How does the government protect people from these abuses without laws and law enforcement. What rights are the governments supposed to be protecting in those cases? And if it is the fault of the government then the market must not be sufficiently self-correcting. Why do you have to have a majority to gain influence in government in order to prosper in this self-correcting market? Which freedoms are we going to blame the government for restricting in this thread? The freedom to discriminate in citizen to citizen dealings or the freedom to be protected from discrimination?
I am not saying that they do it without laws or law enforcement. I am saying that we already have laws that are supposed to protect the individual from harm. One's business should not be allowed to be burned without punishment. Blacks looking to own a business should not be denied licenses from government agencies without cause. The government is not allowed to discriminate. It was abuse of government power by a majority of individuals that restricted and oppressed a minority. My point...is that a racist majority could never have done such things if we didnt give the government the power to do so! Jim Crow is the perfect example where government power can be abused and where individual liberties are pushed aside for populism. If the government was restricted in its power and did its rightful job which is protect individual rights, Jim Crow wouldnt have been possible. The market cannot work if the government violates the public sphere. If blacks could not get licenses for their business, then they are forced to turn to racist owners who will jack up the price. If they were able to open their own business free of obstacle, they could of had an alternative and not needed to rely on the racists.
QUOTE(Eeyore)
Under some of your earlier ideas in this thread is it fair to now argue that government inaction is a restriction of freedom? Because I do agree with that and the government took action for our purposes by trying to end discrimination in housing practices.
Like nighttimer, you are thanking an arsonist for putting out a fire he started. The role of government is to protect individual liberties and to ensure that people are not the victim of positive harm. Government inaction in this area goes against the principles of a free society and threatens that very society. People cannot be free if their rights are not protected. Government legislation with the aim of ending discrimination is a restriction of freedom any way you look at it. The kicker is whether you think the ends justify the means. You, nighttimer, and Julian, may believe so while I disagree. There is nothing factually wrong with either side but rather it is just a fundamental disagreement on the role of government.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 16 2007, 09:42 AM)
The government is not allowed to discriminate. It was abuse of government power by a majority of individuals that restricted and oppressed a minority. My point...is that a racist majority could never have done such things if we didnt give the government the power to do so! Jim Crow is the perfect example where government power can be abused and where individual liberties are pushed aside for populism. If the government was restricted in its power and did its rightful job which is protect individual rights, Jim Crow wouldnt have been possible.
So this is where I think we go from having a healthy difference in interpretation to debating the validity of an interpretation.
While we all have certain rights, this thread to me is essentially, do we have the right to be free from discrimination. If I don't like you I can take all forms of action against you. Many of those are already illegal, many more or are not and are nearly impossible to remedy unless the root cause of the actions, discrimination, is recognized. You are after a colorblind remedy for racism. I don;t think it is possible. We either legally tolerate discrimination because we do not have the right to be protected from it or we do not.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jul 16 2007, 09:42 AM)
Like nighttimer, you are thanking an arsonist for putting out a fire he started. The role of government is to protect individual liberties and to ensure that people are not the victim of positive harm. Government inaction in this area goes against the principles of a free society and threatens that very society. People cannot be free if their rights are not protected. Government legislation with the aim of ending discrimination is a restriction of freedom any way you look at it. The kicker is whether you think the ends justify the means. You, nighttimer, and Julian, may believe so while I disagree. There is nothing factually wrong with either side but rather it is just a fundamental disagreement on the role of government.
Compartmentalizing this into a government only issue turns the real world into a theoretical world with black and white boundaries. Most government legislation is a restriction of a freedom. The Constitution is delicate balancing act. All freedoms clearly are not protected by the government.
I am not an ends justify the means type of person. The means and ends need to be measured. In this case, the end is to provide in a diverse society protection from what I believe is clearly positive harm, discrimination. Then to be careful not to create undo restrictions on Constitutionally established liberties of all American citizens, the method for providing this protection needs to be carefully constructed. I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is one such carefully constructed piece of legislation.
The means is a carefully constructed law, the end is legislating punishments and remedies for discrimination in housing. When I have the theoretical right to live anywhere I want, but I am restricted by discrimination, red lining banks, and social intimidation I do not have the right to actually live anywhere. I may want the freedom to park my recreational vehicle on my own property, but local regulations often keep me from having that right. I may want to build a cabin by the woods in my back yard and live like Thoreau. Heck the concept might be spiritual to me and become part of my freedom to practice religion. But my subdivision may still be able to take me to court and have a judge order me to take it down. This is the real world we live in, and I see no additional Constitutional restriction than the greater than the common above listed ones in legislating that one my not offer a house for rent and post that people of a specific group may not purchase or rent a house from me.
And I see nothing in the market that effectively stops that type of behavior as a natural correction.
QUOTE(Eeyore)
So this is where I think we go from having a healthy difference in interpretation to debating the validity of an interpretation.
While we all have certain rights, this thread to me is essentially, do we have the right to be free from discrimination. If I don't like you I can take all forms of action against you. Many of those are already illegal, many more or are not and are nearly impossible to remedy unless the root cause of the actions, discrimination, is recognized. You are after a colorblind remedy for racism. I don;t think it is possible. We either legally tolerate discrimination because we do not have the right to be protected from it or we do not.
While we all have certain rights, this thread to me is essentially, do we have the right to be free from discrimination. If I don't like you I can take all forms of action against you. Many of those are already illegal, many more or are not and are nearly impossible to remedy unless the root cause of the actions, discrimination, is recognized. You are after a colorblind remedy for racism. I don;t think it is possible. We either legally tolerate discrimination because we do not have the right to be protected from it or we do not.
But where does it end Eeyore? People are discriminated against not just because of race. Age, gender, skin color, socio-economic status, language, the way we dress, the way we behave, the sound of our voice. Is discrimination based on those factors any more or less wrong than discrimination based on race? How exactly does legislation remedy all these ills? People are going to not like people for any number of reasons. Maybe a landlord sees a Bush bumper sticker on the potential owners car and does not want to sell to that person. That is discrimination. Certainly it is wrong and these are the more extreme examples of discrimination. But people discriminate all the time and most of the time it is not for reasons of hate. If you have two potential buyers and one happens to be a college grad who has a good job and the other is a high school dropout, the owner would be discriminating if he chose the former instead of the latter. But we see the conditions for that form of discrimination as acceptable...why? Maybe the dropout needs the place more or maybe the college grad plans on only staying for a few months and then going somewhere else. The fact is that one of the potential buyers was discriminated against. People have to discriminate (and i mean it in the non-negative connotation) in order to make decisions about their daily lives. Me buying Coca-Cola is discriminating against Pepsi because I put them in a worse off position than if I had bought Pepsi.
QUOTE(Eeyore)
Compartmentalizing this into a government only issue turns the real world into a theoretical world with black and white boundaries. Most government legislation is a restriction of a freedom. The Constitution is delicate balancing act. All freedoms clearly are not protected by the government.
Unfortunately this is true. I am on the side of greater freedom which is why I am arguing for what I am.
QUOTE(Eeyore)
I am not an ends justify the means type of person. The means and ends need to be measured. In this case, the end is to provide in a diverse society protection from what I believe is clearly positive harm, discrimination. Then to be careful not to create undo restrictions on Constitutionally established liberties of all American citizens, the method for providing this protection needs to be carefully constructed. I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is one such carefully constructed piece of legislation.
Discrimination does not fit the definition of positive harm. Only actions which physically hurt or coerce an individual into doing something they do not want to do fits that definition. I understand that you think that the Civil Rights Act was well constructed and does not place undue restrictions on liberty, I find that restricting one's ability to enter into contracts freely and without coercion is wrong.
QUOTE(Eeyore)
The means is a carefully constructed law, the end is legislating punishments and remedies for discrimination in housing. When I have the theoretical right to live anywhere I want, but I am restricted by discrimination, red lining banks, and social intimidation I do not have the right to actually live anywhere. I may want the freedom to park my recreational vehicle on my own property, but local regulations often keep me from having that right. I may want to build a cabin by the woods in my back yard and live like Thoreau. Heck the concept might be spiritual to me and become part of my freedom to practice religion. But my subdivision may still be able to take me to court and have a judge order me to take it down. This is the real world we live in, and I see no additional Constitutional restriction than the greater than the common above listed ones in legislating that one my not offer a house for rent and post that people of a specific group may not purchase or rent a house from me.
I never understood this appeal to the 'real world.' Do I not live in the real world? Dont answer that