# decentralize government and conservative anarchist or libertarian **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2013, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712 "2013-04-03T08:02:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![OurLordPeace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e8c25b/32.png) [@OurLordPeace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OurLordPeace)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/161 "2013-04-16T05:12:11Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Is this what you are referring to: > > Are you an anarchist? Yes, and I know quite a few others. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/162 "2013-04-16T07:25:58Z")
> [@OurLordPeace](#): > > Yes, and I know quite a few others. Are you a left wing Marxist anarchist? And what political impact do you have on society today if you are? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/163 "2013-04-16T07:36:54Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That argues for a “created by the CRA” interpretation, rather than a right that’s as old as civilization. Why? Why can’t rights as old as civilization be first recognized by the CRA? And what does it matter when morality is injected into the human condition by whatever governing system that exists in the moment in time? As a liberatarian you are stating that a moral and virtuous right cannot exist unless a government says it exists in some kind of written or recorded fashion. That seems to be the opposite of devotion to individual liberty to me. As a libertarian leaner I would hope that someone like Rand Paulwould consider protection of a society’s smallest minority’s rights would be the most sacred ‘group’ of a society that libertarians would seek to protect, I don’t see that in today’s libertarianism. Liberatarians have more concern with the more powerful group in society. The property ownerns. This argument about when a minority’s right was created is a dance around that preference, in my most humble of opinions. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/164 "2013-04-16T08:35:15Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Let’s turn this around for a moment, and have the owner be black, and the customer be white. > > If the customer refuses to buy gas because the station is owned by a black guy, is he causing the owner harm? > > And if you answer yes, and he is causing harm, is it proper and justified for the Federal government to intervene and force the white guy to buy the black guy’s gas? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > My answer is no. If you need/want an explanation, let me know. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’d like one, even if **emacknight** doesn’t. > [@emacknight](#): > > I’d love to hear it. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Just spitballing here - isn’t a typical American likelier to enjoy more personal freedom if it is assured by the Federal government that he or she would probably get from any state government electable in Texas, Kansas, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi… the whole South, basically? It is interesting that Human Action went for a ‘guns and taxes’ response when asked about ‘more personal freedom being assured by the Federal governament for a typical American’ living in the south. And we’ve been talking about personal freedom for the African American minority group of typical decent law-abiding church goiing Americans that had to literally fight, bleed and die for an elemental right of human dignity primarily in those southern states that Bryan Eckers brings up. The ‘electable’ white governments of the fifties and early sixties in those Southern State tried to circumvent the spirit of the 14th Amendment by establishing 'Equal but Separate" for blacks. That was not equal in any way shape or form. My answer ‘no’ to emacknight’s reverse white and black situation is only because for the Gas Station owner scenario to be valid as an argument it would have also considered that the ‘Separate but Equal’ was also reversed. Whites would be subject to lynching and other forms of Post WWII harrassment and discrimination for there to be an argument and remedy along thise lines. taking on moment of historical reality out of the context of long periods of historical reality. Such as many black men and women served their country and their Constitution during WWII when even the US Military was segregated. The likelyhood of a lot of those veterans of combat coming home and owning a gas station was not very good. You can reverse that illegitmate condition by typing out a what if for one gas station in the South during the Civil Rights fight or today. You just can’t. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > This being “the right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor”, correct? Yes if one group holds an imbalanced amount of power over the minority group of equal capacity and similar demeanor. That is the power of white property ownership as the majority over the black group as a whole. But within each group we are saying there is a group of people that have equal capacity.. that is say mid to low level income and are law abiding and and behave as typical upright American citizens.. you know work for a living and raise kids, - pursue the American dream. That is what makes up the vast majority of customers. So when one of those comparable sub-group happen to be black and of minority status, they have the right equal treatment by any other American that decides to conduct business/commerce as a private business owner. That is as JFK defined it in 1963 an elementary right. And it is Constitutional in my opinion in the fact that the CRA in 1964 did not ‘create’ the elemental right, but it enshrined it into law and made it an effective right to hold and to have and to be guaranteed. Fifty years of being upheld as Constitutional is quite enough for me. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Is there a difference between elemental rights and natural ones? You now advocate the existence of a right that applies to private citizens. Are there any other rights like this? The elemental right to life liberty and equal justice is a right for all human beings within the well- understood bounds. They are elemental - not different or separate, alike or unlike. Elementary. Morality is the guide to recognize them. Property ownership is an essential part of that, however property ownership in an of itself does not over-ride the elementary right equal treatment of minority groups. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/165 "2013-04-16T11:52:31Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Why? Why can’t rights as old as civilization be first recognized by the CRA? And what does it matter when morality is injected into the human condition by whatever governing system that exists in the moment in time? Because Kennedy said “I am therefore asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments.” _Giving_ them the right, not recognizing or enshrining it. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > As a liberatarian you are stating that a moral and virtuous right cannot exist unless a government says it exists in some kind of written or recorded fashion. That seems to be the opposite of devotion to individual liberty to me. No, I believe in natural rights, I just don’t think the right you defined above is one of them, making it purely a legal right. Which is fine and all, legal rights are rights too, but let’s be honest about what they are. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > As a libertarian leaner I would hope that someone like Rand Paulwould consider protection of a society’s smallest minority’s rights would be the most sacred ‘group’ of a society that libertarians would seek to protect, > I don’t see that in today’s libertarianism. Liberatarians have more concern with the more powerful group in society. The property ownerns. Protection of actual rights, sure. Protection of dubious ones created by the legislature, which infringe on the rights of others? Totally different situation. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > This argument about when a minority’s right was created is a dance around that preference, in my most humble of opinions. If you’re claiming something to be a right, you should be able to identify its source. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/166 "2013-04-16T12:04:10Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It is interesting that Human Action went for a ‘guns and taxes’ response when asked about ‘more personal freedom being assured by the Federal governament for a typical American’ living in the south. Not really, because those are two freedoms which I trust Southern state governments to protect, more so than the federal government. It doesn’t mean that those are the only freedoms I care about, I’d like them all, please. My state, Kentucky, [scored 2 out of 100](http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/KY) possible points in the Brady Campaign’s rankings of strictness of gun laws, one of the lowest scores. It’s inaccurate to say that an American would enjoy more personal freedom from the federal government than from state, and particularly Southern state governments, because freedom isn’t a binary free/unfree concept, it has many aspects that vary from place to place. Like it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is a personal freedom, after all. The South is less free in some ways, more free in others, than other regions, and as compared to federal law. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/167 "2013-04-16T12:41:52Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Not really, because those are two freedoms which I trust Southern state governments to protect, more so than the federal government. It doesn’t mean that those are the only freedoms I care about, I’d like them all, please. My state, Kentucky, [scored 2 out of 100](http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/KY) possible points in the Brady Campaign’s rankings of strictness of gun laws, one of the lowest scores. It’s inaccurate to say that an American would enjoy more personal freedom from the federal government than from state, and particularly Southern state governments, because freedom isn’t a binary free/unfree concept, it has many aspects that vary from place to place. Like it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is a personal freedom, after all. The South is less free in some ways, more free in others, than other regions, and as compared to federal law. I am not advocating anyone’s second amendment right be infringed. However it is an issue where even the gun lobby admits the Federal Government has jurisdiction over regulating many types of weapons that the 2nd Amendment does not protect. Machine guns for instance. Purist libertarians should argue that private law abiding citizens should be able to arm themselves with whatever firepower they need to protect themselves from the Federal Government if that need arrived. That’s heavy weapons including tanks and fighter bombers. But they don’t object to Federal suppression if their right to possess heavy weaponry. That lack of objection should also lead to libertarian acceptance that the Feds have properly stepped in to regulate the commerce of business with regard to civil Rights and laws against racial discrimination. The secondary topic on this thread has been accepted as the rights of minorities vs the rights of property owners to hate while conducting commerce that crosses state lines. Individual liberty was not so hot for black folks in the fifties and sixties under Southern white governments. It’s liberty for all, remember? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/168 "2013-04-16T13:14:07Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And we’ve been talking about personal freedom for the African American minority group of typical decent law-abiding church goiing Americans that had to literally fight, bleed and die for an elemental right of human dignity primarily in those southern states that Bryan Eckers brings up. The ‘electable’ white governments of the fifties and early sixties in those Southern State tried to circumvent the spirit of the 14th Amendment by establishing 'Equal but Separate" for blacks. That was not equal in any way shape or form. Agreed, mandatory segregation is unconstitutional. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > My answer ‘no’ to emacknight’s reverse white and black situation is only because for the Gas Station owner scenario to be valid as an argument it would have also considered that the ‘Separate but Equal’ was also reversed. > > Whites would be subject to lynching and other forms of Post WWII harrassment and discrimination for there to be an argument and remedy along thise lines. taking on moment of historical reality out of the context of long periods of historical reality. Ok, you are now arguing for legal inequality, to correct for a previous legal inequality. I’d argue that only equality will achieve equality, rather than trying to manipulate people into it via removing their choices. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Such as many black men and women served their country and their Constitution during WWII when even the US Military was segregated. The likelyhood of a lot of those veterans of combat coming home and owning a gas station was not very good. You can reverse that illegitmate condition by typing out a what if for one gas station in the South during the Civil Rights fight or today. > > You just can’t. Then let’s address the legal barriers that kept black folk from owning more businesses, rather than force people to do transactions against their will. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Yes if one group holds an imbalanced amount of power over the minority group of equal capacity and similar demeanor. > > That is the power of white property ownership as the majority over the black group as a whole. But within each group we are saying there is a group of people that have equal capacity.. that is say mid to low level income and are law abiding and and behave as typical upright American citizens.. you know work for a living and raise kids, - pursue the American dream. > > That is what makes up the vast majority of customers. So when one of those comparable sub-group happen to be black and of minority status, they have the right equal treatment by any other American that decides to conduct business/commerce as a private business owner. But people of majority status, such as whites or Christians, do not have this right? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That is as JFK defined it in 1963 an elementary right. > > And it is Constitutional in my opinion in the fact that the CRA in 1964 did not ‘create’ the elemental right, but it enshrined it into law and made it an effective right to hold and to have and to be guaranteed. Fifty years of being upheld as Constitutional is quite enough for me. Kennedy said the law _gave_ Americans the right. You said he explained it best, so… > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The elemental right to life liberty and equal justice is a right for all human beings within the well- understood bounds. They are elemental - not different or separate, alike or unlike. Elementary. Morality is the guide to recognize them. > > Property ownership is an essential part of that, however property ownership in an of itself does not over-ride the elementary right equal treatment of minority groups. Name a single right that restrains other private citizens, rather than the government. There may well be one, but I can’t think of it. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/169 "2013-04-16T13:33:44Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I am not advocating anyone’s second amendment right be infringed. However it is an issue where even the gun lobby admits the Federal Government has jurisdiction over regulating many types of weapons that the 2nd Amendment does not protect. Machine guns for instance. > > Purist libertarians should argue that private law abiding citizens should be able to arm themselves with whatever firepower they need to protect themselves from the Federal Government if that need arrived. > > That’s heavy weapons including tanks and fighter bombers. > > But they don’t object to Federal suppression if their right to possess heavy weaponry. > > That lack of objection should also lead to libertarian acceptance that the Feds have properly stepped in to regulate the commerce of business with regard to civil > Rights and laws against racial discrimination. > > The secondary topic on this thread has been accepted as the rights of minorities vs the rights of property owners to hate while conducting commerce that crosses state lines. > > Individual liberty was not so hot for black folks in the fifties and sixties under Southern white governments. > > It’s liberty for all, remember? I’m responding to a specific statement, not arguing that the Federal government can’t make gun laws or anything like that. The statement was: > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > isn’t a typical American likelier to enjoy more personal freedom if it is assured by the Federal government that he or she would probably get from any state government electable in Texas, Kansas, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi… the whole South, basically? The answer is “it depends on which freedoms we’re talking about”. In the case of gun rights, it’s a “no”; you’d enjoy more freedom in the South if it were left purely to the state level. If the Federal government dissolved tomorrow, Kentucky probably would not pass state versions of the various Federal gun laws, or at least not many of them. We have very few state gun laws as it is here in the Commonwealth. What other freedoms might be safer under Southern state governments than the Federal one? Broadly speaking, building permits and such are easier to get, taxes are lower, [LA and NC](http://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-grade-detail) have less abusive civil forfeiture laws…that’s off the top of my head. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/170 "2013-04-16T13:43:32Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > Most conservative anarchist or libertarian really hate centralized government and would want the US to go back to way it was before a more proper democracy. The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic and was designed as such. The Founding Fathers very specifically did not want a strong central government. They gave the federal government a list of specific duties and intended for the fed to be a referee whenever the states had issues between themselves. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/171 "2013-04-16T17:36:17Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > My answer ‘no’ to emacknight’s reverse white and black situation is only because for the Gas Station owner scenario to be valid as an argument it would have also considered that the ‘Separate but Equal’ was also reversed. Let’s try this again. In the first scenario we have - White person with gas - Black person with cash You believe that the person with cash has a right to buy gas, if refused he is caused harm, and that the Federal government should stop in and force the [white] person with gas to sell it to the [black] person with cash. I asked about what happens if that’s reversed - White person with cash - Black person with gas It would not surprise me if the same racist asshole from scenario 1 would also refuse to shop a at black-owned gas station, there by refusing to exchange cash for gas. The question I asked was if harm was done to the black gas station owner? You stated that harm was done when the black person was refused gas in exchange for cash, is harm also done when the black person is refused cash in exchange for gas. You answered no, but failed to explain. What is the difference in those two situations? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/172 "2013-04-17T11:30:39Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Let’s try this again. In the first scenario we have > > - White person with gas > - Black person with cash > You believe that the person with cash has a right to buy gas, if refused he is caused harm, and that the Federal government should stop in and force the [white] person with gas to sell it to the [black] person with cash. > > I asked about what happens if that’s reversed > > - White person with cash > - Black person with gas > It would not surprise me if the same racist asshole from scenario 1 would also refuse to shop a at black-owned gas station, there by refusing to exchange cash for gas. > > The question I asked was if harm was done to the black gas station owner? You stated that harm was done when the black person was refused gas in exchange for cash, is harm also done when the black person is refused cash in exchange for gas. > > You answered no, but failed to explain. What is the difference in those two situations? I did not fail to explain. Please review. To sum what I wrote, I would say that if the entire history of separate but equal were reversed as indicative in your scenario, then my answer would be yes. But an isolated incident as you suggest this scenario is, my answer would be no. If white’s are the party in power and with most control of most of the property, then they would not need the Federal Government to intervene if a lone black gas station owner or even if it were a few black owners that refused to serve white folks. If the State Government didn’t take care of the black owners, the white business communtiy would. The black guy would be out of business, my guess would be within 90 days if he attempted to discriminate against whites. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/173 "2013-04-17T17:33:47Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I did not fail to explain. Please review. To sum what I wrote, I would say that if the entire history of separate but equal were reversed as indicative in your scenario, then my answer would be yes. But an isolated incident as you suggest this scenario is, my answer would be no. > > If white’s are the party in power and with most control of most of the property, then they would not need the Federal Government to intervene if a lone black gas station owner or even if it were a few black owners that refused to serve white folks. If the State Government didn’t take care of the black owners, the white business communtiy would. The black guy would be out of business, my guess would be within 90 days if he attempted to discriminate against whites. Last chance here. The white guy is refusing to BUY gas from the black guy. I don’t know how to make that any clearer to you but you’ve still failed to grasp what’s going on. You claim that when a white person refuses to SELL something to a black person, that causes harm. So I am asking you if harm is also caused when a white person refuses to BUY something a black person. Like you said, white people have all the property and power. So if the white people in a community refused to buy gas from a black gas station owner he’d be screwed. Shouldn’t the Federal government step in and force white people to BUY goods and services from from black store owners? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/174 "2013-04-17T21:18:52Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Last chance here. The white guy is refusing to BUY gas from the black guy. I don’t know how to make that any clearer to you but you’ve still failed to grasp what’s going on. > > You claim that when a white person refuses to SELL something to a black person, that causes harm. So I am asking you if harm is also caused when a white person refuses to BUY something a black person. > > Like you said, white people have all the property and power. So if the white people in a community refused to buy gas from a black gas station owner he’d be screwed. Shouldn’t the Federal government step in and force white people to BUY goods and services from from black store owners? No. A Black Business owner is not harmed because there is no obligation on the part of the consumer to buy anything from anyone at all. There is no deprivation of a necessity/commodity while traveling across state lines in this case. If the white racist chooses to travel twenty miles further to the next gas station it is his business to do so. If he gets stranded between gas stations then the only harm the white man has done is done to himself. He can efn walk, gas can in hand, to the nearest white owned gas station. There has never been a civil rights movement involving a demand that white folks spend their money in black establishments. The white racist is withholding his private property (money) from going into a black man’s cash register by going out of his way to avoid contributing to a black owned business. While that may be detrimental for a black business owner in a predominately white neighborhood, the black business owner may not have located his business where black customers were not part of his business plan. Also, all white folk are not racists. So a black businessman may have an advantage because 99% of blacks would support his business while also attracting a share of white customers that were not full blown racist bigots. And then we have the matter of non-local and interstate customers in need of a fill- up on the way from Muskogee to Tallahassee. They’d have no way of knowing if a gas station were white or black owned, would they? That is unless businesses were required to post signs declaring the race of the owner. So my answer is no. There is no need for the Federal Government to step in to tell racists where to spend their money. There is no large discriminatory harm committed against one large group of black business owners, and there was never any petition to the Fed government or courts to require that black businesses have a right that the general pool of potentential customers be required to spend money at their businesses. It just never happened or would happen because there is no racially discriminatory harm done when a private citizen spends his money even if he spends it based upon the race of the business owner. But when a business owner withholds the commodity that he generally sells to the greater anonymous public it does cause harm to the group being targeted if it us based solely on the color of their skin. On the matter of interstate commerce, the sale of gasoline to traveling motorists is a good example of how one group can be harmed. It is called being stranded on the road for no fault of their own. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/175 "2013-04-17T21:47:24Z")
Of side interest. In all of Detroit there are three black owned gas stations. > [@](#): > > DETROIT — Twenty years ago, there were 15 Black-owned gas stations in Detroit. Today, there are three; two Mobil stations and a Shell. > > James Robinson, a retired Detroit Police Department (DPD) lieutenant, owns the Mobil station located on Woodward and Forest in the heart of Midtown. Robinson’s negotiating skills caught the eye of ExxonMobil executives and he was offered a unique opportunity: to become an ExxonMobil gas station manager in 1992. Robinson seized the moment and was ready to take it to the next level when ExxonMobil Oil decided to get out of gasoline retail sales. The corporation offered franchising deals for those who wanted to become independent dealers. > > Vincent Davis, Sr. purchased the Shell station at Seven Mile and West Outer Drive 38 years ago. Davis, like Robinson, was a franchisee but now owns the station. A full-service station, a rarity these days of pump-your-own gas, Davis’s station includes a repair center. A full-service station, as was explained by Vincent Davis, Jr., is where gas is pumped by an attendant, who check tires and washes the windshield. > > The other Mobil is located on the Northwest corner of Linwood and Davison. The owner wishes to be known only as John. In a telephone interview one week following the alleged assault and robbery of Rev. Marvin Winans at the Citgo station across the street, John said he grew up in Detroit. > > [http://michigancitizen.com/number-of-black-owned-gas-stations-in-detroit-declines/](http://michigancitizen.com/number-of-black-owned-gas-stations-in-detroit-declines/) ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/176 "2013-04-18T13:00:29Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No. A Black Business owner is not harmed because there is no obligation on the part of the consumer to buy anything from anyone at all. > > There is no deprivation of a necessity/commodity while traveling across state lines in this case. > > If the white racist chooses to travel twenty miles further to the next gas station it is his business to do so. If he gets stranded between gas stations then the only harm the white man has done is done to himself. > > He can efn walk, gas can in hand, to the nearest white owned gas station. > > There has never been a civil rights movement involving a demand that white folks spend their money in black establishments. > The white racist is withholding his private property (money) from going into a black man’s cash register by going out of his way to avoid contributing to a black owned business. > > While that may be detrimental for a black business owner in a predominately white neighborhood, the black business owner may not have located his business where black customers were not part of his business plan. > > Also, all white folk are not racists. > > So a black businessman may have an advantage because 99% of blacks would support his business while also attracting a share of white customers that were not full blown racist bigots. > > And then we have the matter of non-local and interstate customers in need of a fill- up on the way from Muskogee to Tallahassee. They’d have no way of knowing if a gas station were white or black owned, would they? That is unless businesses were required to post signs declaring the race of the owner. > > So my answer is no. There is no need for the Federal Government to step in to tell racists where to spend their money. There is no large discriminatory harm committed against one large group of black business owners, and there was never any petition to the Fed government or courts to require that black businesses have a right that the general pool of potentential customers be required to spend money at their businesses. > > It just never happened or would happen because there is no racially discriminatory harm done when a private citizen spends his money even if he spends it based upon the race of the business owner. > > But when a business owner withholds the commodity that he generally sells to the greater anonymous public it does cause harm to the group being targeted if it us based solely on the color of their skin. On the matter of interstate commerce, the sale of gasoline to traveling motorists is a good example of how one group can be harmed. > > It is called being stranded on the road for no fault of their own. You are allowing the motorist to violate the owner’s “right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor”, by allowing him to discriminate in buying fuel. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/177 "2013-04-18T18:50:57Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No. A Black Business owner is not harmed because there is no obligation on the part of the consumer to buy anything from anyone at all. > > There is no deprivation of a necessity/commodity while traveling across state lines in this case. So cash isn’t a necessity or commodity? But gasoline is? If the station owner can’t sell his gas, he goes broke, loses his home, and his family starves to death. Sounds like harm to me, are you sure you’ve thought this through because later on you said, “While that may be detrimental for a black business owner in a predominately white neighborhood, the black business owner may not have located his business where black customers were not part of his business plan.” So it may be detrimental, but it’s not going to cause harm in the same way being refused service is? What if that black gas station owner needed more gas for his station, but the supplier was white and refused, would that cause harm? In this case it’s not a semi-public service since it’s business to business. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > He can efn walk, gas can in hand, to the nearest white owned gas station. Are you sure you meant to write that? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Also, all white folk are not racists. The CRA and Federal government seem to think so, otherwise this wouldn’t be necessary. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/178 "2013-04-18T21:07:01Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > You are allowing the motorist to violate the owner’s “right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor”, by allowing him to discriminate in buying fuel. The black gas station owner does not have an elementary right to any group or market share that is any different than any other business owner of any other race. The black traveling family does have an elemental right to be treated equally at the pump as any other race. The business made should be aware of the risk that some whites may avoid purchasing his product but can plan accordingly. But a black traveling family should not be forced by bigoted travel and accommodation business owners to travel the public roads that are open to all in a different way than their white counterparts can. It is a weak argument that emacknight has put forth. He’s basically trying to make avoiding be boycotted a businessnans right. No one has sought protection from the Feds on that basis. It is not the opposite or reversed role of what the CRA protects. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/179 "2013-04-18T21:34:52Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > You are allowing the motorist to violate the owner’s “right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor”, by allowing him to discriminate in buying fuel. The black business owner as part of the larger group of business owners does not have a right to be treated ‘without prejudice and discrimination’ from potential general public customers because he has no special rights to be treated any differently than his non-black business owner peers are also treated by the consuming public. Non-black business equals of the larger business-owner peer group can be and are treated with prejudice and discrimination all the time. On the flip side as we have been discussing, blacks ad customers were not being tested equally with their white peers by discriminatory white business owners. It is about being equal. The buying public has no government restraints on how the choose to spend their own money unless they are committing some crime when they do it. It is not a crime to drive past a white or blacked owned business if your are not of the race as the owner. The business owner has no right to your money. All business owners are treated equal by customers in that regard. There is no inequality of treatment as a group by customers and owners toward each other. Withholding service by a business owner from blacks but not from whites is not equal treatment at all. However if a commodity or accommodation is open to sell to a general public, discrimination ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712/180 "2013-04-19T13:57:39Z")
So the right to be treated without prejudice and discrimination as a group as compared to another group of equal capacity and similar demeanor, is not a universal, individual right, it only applies to certain groups at certain times? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decentralize-government-and-conservative-anarchist-or-libertarian/654712.md?page=10)