Yes, it does.
I disagree with the Supreme Court in this matter, obviously.
It’s certainly an infringement on the owners’ liberty, even if you reject the Fifth Amendment argument: a choice has been taken from them, a behavior once routine is now illegal.
Considering some of the things that were considered “owners’ liberty” in the past (and considering many behaviors that were “once routine”), I don’t find this particularly persuasive.
When laws about those practices are under discussion, that will be relevant.
I think it’s relevant to a discussion of civil rights- as well as relevant towards explaining why I’m not persuaded by that argument.
If I drive across a state line to Md and consume a cheeseburger and a beer, just who exactly is bringing the consumed good into Va.
The rest of your response is wrong:
How is it relevant? Liberty isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition, it is defined and bounded by our thousands of laws, each of which must be defended on their own, individual merits. If you agree with a legal system of “what isn’t prohibited is allowed”, rather than “what isn’t allowed is prohibited”, then each prohibition must endure scrutiny as to its purpose and efficacy.
Sure, I agree. Turning away people from your restaurant because they are black was allowed until 1964, though it should not have been. In 1964, it was explicitly prohibited.
Well, yes, it was prohibited in 1964.
However, it should be pointed out that, in many areas, serving the black customer would have been illegal.
Thanks to that law and others, like the Separate Car Act, the owners had no choice but to discriminate. Then, post-1964, they had no choice but to not discriminate.
I disagree completely. In a society where minorities are made to feel second class for the most basic necessities as lodging, getting food, medical treatment or even a home to live in, that society is dysfunctional and the minorities within it are being punched in the gut every time an injustice occurs.
I agree. Lincoln obviously made a huge mistake with the Emancipation Proclamation. He infringed on the slave owners (property owners) who had the right to do with their property (the slaves) what they saw fit.
That second-class status was imposed by law. Lifting those laws was admirable and just.
Libertarians love slavery, all right, it’s right there in the name. Seriously, remember two posts ago, where you quoted me saying that infringement was justified in the event of harm done to others?
Which doesn’t reply to how not enforcing anti-discrimination laws do nothing to deal with ingrained racism. Just removing laws that force discrimination is not enough to deal with the things I outlined in a society where you have a minority class.
Look at it your way: A white business owner lives in a community that is 90% white and that community overwhelmingly prefers to take their business to whites-only establishments. If that business owner goes against the wills of the community that he not serve blacks, he is risking 90% of his potential customers to do the morally correct thing. What makes sense in Libertaria? The answer is clear: No Niggers Allowed.
This all hinges on what your definition of “people” and “property” is. You use a very different definition than many in the Antebellum South.
My point is that your argument against human rights in the name of property ownership rights can be applied very nicely to those who thought slavery was an essential element for the economic landscape. There is no way for you to get around that other than quibble with the definition of what property was and who was considered a person.
In their world, it was okay to enslave a person. In your world, it’s perfectly acceptable to marginalize a person, to make them eat elsewhere, sleep elsewhere, live elsewhere. Not much of a fucking difference, really, especially since in practice, blacks were not nicely told to run along.
Emmett Till wasn’t a slave. But he as a young teenager in a foreign world to him, made the mistake of saying something he shouldn’t have to a white woman. We saw what the community there did to him for that transgression.
So how was he not a slave again?
I have never thought that Title II does not infringe on a business owner’s rights to act and behave as they please on their private business property.
But when there is a conflict over the enabling of rights between two groups (and there was much conflict in the fifties and sixties) that are competing for protection of certain rights to do certain things - one side is going to have to give up a right or accept they do not have it.
I think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the fairest and must just call.
I base that upon what I believe the overall intent of the US Constitution really is. And to define that intent on purely humanistic terms I would put myself in the shoes of that traveling Black Family who’s car breaks down and they need a room and have the cash to rent one.
They deserve as all Americans do to take the nearest and best choice of rooms just like everone else. That is fair and just and moral.
If a business owner is open to the public the moment when that family walks up to the registration desk he/she has already given up the right to discriminate and send that family away, if there are rooms available.
That is how I would decide which group needs protection of their rights the most.
What is fair and what is just.
Social justice and racial harmony are way too general for my thoughts on this.
The question should be is it non-physical violence, but violence of sorts for the father of the traveling black family to be told they can’t stay or eat where white people eat.
Is there a damaged party there.
I say there is.
Damage that needed to be rectified,
And it was as much as possible in 1964. The right rights are protected.
Does nothing, really? Then why did the communities in question make segregation lengally mandatory? Why did minorities in communities without those laws enjoy a higher quality of life?
Ok, and an argument against property rights in the name of human rights applies very nicely to Soviet Communism. What you dismiss as “quibbling” is the breadth between “property rights are absolute” and “there is no property”. Any ideology in between has to make these sort of distinctions and take stances; there’s nothing about property rights or libertarianism that mandates supporting slavery.
Wow, so separate but equal is the ideal in Libertaria. This is what I meant when I said I was a Libertarian but then I grew up. You have to contort reality to have it fit your worldview so much, it’s a wonder you don’t rupture your spleen.
Meanwhile in the real world, minorities in segregated communities demonstratively did not have higher qualities of life. That’s why Chief Justice Earl Warren said what he said, because the evidence presented to the court showed that separate but equal was a flawed premise in the real world. (My apologies for taking you out of your comfort zone. The “real world” has a habit of throwing Libertarians since it always seems to be so markedly different from the ideals present only in their heads.)
And you do not respond to what I said about how in Libertaria, the business owner will post that No Niggers Allowed sign because it’s good for business. And you know this.
Libertarians always fail to comprehend that what is good for business is not always good for society (see industrially polluted waterways, see entire communities reduced to a shambles by one business that employs them all, see the results of a racially segregated society).
No, this is not Soviet Communism. Nobody is saying that there is common ownership in everything, which is a key element to Communism. Blacks are not a communal owner of the restaurant they wish to eat at. Or do you feel that the moment a business owner is unable to deny service to a black person that the black person suddenly has some ownership in the business? Is that your contention?
No, the definition of what is property is the key here. One can say that blacks are not property but my lawnmower is. One can also say that blacks are my property, so nigger, go mow the lawn! None of this means there is “no property” as you try and take the argument.
Tell that to Emmett Till’s corpse.
I am not sure what the question is?
I fully understand your position, I simply disagree with it. I don’t know what else can be said on the matter.
My last post was wildly misinterpreted. Not assigning blame, I’m no Oliver Wendell Holmes, but I will re-assert my points, and I invite you to address them, then I will address your points. I don’t wish to address things I never claimed, you see.
Separate but equal referred to segregation laws, like the Separate Car Act. I am only discussing discrimination by private actors, not state ones, which is plainly unconstitutional.
You wrote that not enforcing anti-discrimination laws did nothing to deal with ingrained racism. I replied that if this is the case, why was segregation made legally mandatory? If everyone could be relied upon to be a good racist, it seems needless.
I was referring to the higher quality of life of minorities that did not live under segregation laws, even in racist cities. If the law has no effect on ingrained racism, than a minority in Boston should have had it just as rough as one in Birmingham.
Further, I question the effect any law can have on ingrained racism as a mental position.
In a community in which 90% of the population would boycott? That might be the way to go. Then again, was that the case? Since the CRA wiped out public and private discrimination in one go, we can’t be sure what effect it would have had if it targeted only public (that is, state) discrimination.
I’m going to stick with the Civil Rights Act debate.
You wrote that “My point is that your argument against human rights in the name of property ownership rights can be applied very nicely to those who thought slavery was an essential element for the economic landscape.”
Thing is, we place property rights over human rights every day. Your right to free speech doesn’t apply to my private property; I can have you removed for trespassing. Your right to practice religion doesn’t apply to my land; you can’t seize it because you find it holy. And so forth.
Thus, claiming that holding property rights above human rights means supporting slavery is as nonsensical as claiming that holding human rights above property rights means supporting Communism. Property rights and human rights both exist by degrees, we don’t have absolutes of either.
And that is an entirely different question (what is property?) to the one at hand (In what circumstances and to what degree may the state infringe on property rights?) Slavery has nothing to do with anything here, unless you just want to inflame emotions. But you wouldn’t do that, right?
Oh, you would.
The above makes no sense that I can parse. Neither property rights nor libertarianism played any role in Emmett Till’s murder.
Ah, never mind. We’ve reached an impasse, the disagreement is at its bedrock level.
One brick in the impasse we have appears to be that you do not allow a distinction between private property being used for private purposes and for purposes of commerce wherin private property is opened to the public.
When a property owner unlocks his doors and invites complete strangers in to engage in commerce he has already decided to relinquish some of his liberty to the state and local governments.
When the general public is invited in, the commercial property owner must comply with all kinds of regulations depending upon the commerce being engaged within the premises.
You have clued me in to some better understanding of the libertarian mindset, so perhaps you can explain why the distinction between private property as residence and private property being open to the public is not relevant to our discussion about Title II.
Rand Paul spoke at Howard Unuversity.