# Libertarian Topic of the Week 1: Civil Rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 14, 2014, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118 "2014-04-14T23:19:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/281 "2014-04-18T02:03:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’d like to see a response to this, too. And an addendum: if we switched to a libertarian form of government, and despite your\* expectations, Jim Crow did come back full force, would that be sufficient for you to change your mind about the advisability of anti-discrimination laws? It would be, for me. But I also consider that hypothetical a 2 on the scale of 1-100 in terms of probability, so it doesn’t convince me that in 2014 the government needs to be excessively vigilant on protecting racial minorities. At some point, absent _evidence_ of discrimination, such laws serve no purpose. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/282 "2014-04-18T02:15:04Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’d like to see a response to this, too. And an addendum: if we switched to a libertarian form of government, and despite your\* expectations, Jim Crow did come back full force, would that be sufficient for you to change your mind about the advisability of anti-discrimination laws? > > \*“you” meaning the libertarians in this thread, of course, not **Fear Itself**. Jim Crow was government enforced segregation. That is the _sine qua non_ of Jim Crow. If that happened, the people would have chosen to abandon Libertarianism. As for his other points, they’ve already been addressed. He thinks blacks would be herded into ghettos and some of us don’t think that would happen. Each of us has to decide whether or not that would happen-- it cannot be proven, AFACT. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/283 "2014-04-18T02:45:34Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > . . . Intent is not the same as what is being penalized as a hate crime. In the case of murder, the mens rea is that the person intended to commit the killing as compared to someone who accidentally killed a person. A hate crime is about why the person committed the crime, because they were a particular race or gender. The intent can be present without the ‘why’. Not at all the same. The intent, in a hate crime, is exactly the motivation for the crime. If the crime was motivated by racism, some kinds of nationalism, religious bigotry, etc., then, under hate crime laws, it is punished more severely. It is 100% about intent. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/284 "2014-04-18T02:49:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Jim Crow was government enforced segregation. . . . Not exactly. The first line of enforcement was the shopkeeper himself. When he said, “We don’t serve your kind in here,” he was enforcing racial discrimination. The government would only get involved if the would-be customer refused to leave, or made threats. This is similar to the fallacy that taxes are collected, in the U.S., by force. They aren’t. Force only comes in to play when someone resists arrest, after having violated a court order, etc. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/285 "2014-04-18T03:04:10Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Not exactly. The first line of enforcement was the shopkeeper himself. When he said, “We don’t serve your kind in here,” he was enforcing racial discrimination. > > The government would only get involved if the would-be customer refused to leave, or made threats. > > This is similar to the fallacy that taxes are collected, in the U.S., by force. They aren’t. Force only comes in to play when someone resists arrest, after having violated a court order, etc. Got a cite for that? Here’s is wikipedia’s section on the Etymology: > [@](#): > > Etymology > The phrase “Jim Crow Law” first appeared in 1904 according to the Dictionary of American English,[1] although there is some evidence of earlier usage.[2][3] The origin of the phrase “Jim Crow” has often been attributed to “Jump Jim Crow”, a song-and-dance caricature of blacks performed by white actor Thomas D. Rice in blackface, which first surfaced in 1832 and was used to satirize Andrew Jackson’s populist policies. As a result of Rice’s fame, “Jim Crow” had become a pejorative expression meaning “Negro” by 1838. When southern legislatures passed laws of racial segregation – directed against blacks – at the end of the 19th century, these became known as Jim Crow laws.[2] Emphasis added. “Jim Crow” is short for “Jim Crow Laws”, in the context of racial discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/286 "2014-04-18T03:13:37Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The intent, in a hate crime, is exactly the motivation for the crime. If the crime was motivated by racism, some kinds of nationalism, religious bigotry, etc., then, under hate crime laws, it is punished more severely. It is 100% about intent. You are mistaken here. Intent in this context is similar to mens rea . it is whether or not the action was on purpose or an accident. Hate crimes on the other hand are not talking about whether a personeant to commit a crime. Hate crime laws are more about what motivated the action. Intent and motivation are separate in the legal context. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/287 "2014-04-18T03:49:37Z")
Of course there was widespread discrimination in many places that did not have “Jim Crow” laws. For example, since people have been bringing up restaurants, most high class NYC restaurants in the 20s and the 30s refused to serve black people and most of the high class hotels wouldn’t rent rooms to black people. Even in the case of the famous “Cotton Club” where virtually all the employees were African-American there was a strict “Whites only” policy when it came to guests. Moreover had they actually been willing to serve blacks their white customers probably would have gone elsewhere. Their discriminatory policies were “rational” “market-based” reactions to their customer base. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/288 "2014-04-18T03:56:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > . . . Emphasis added. “Jim Crow” is short for “Jim Crow Laws”, in the context of racial discrimination. So, if a guy had a big sign out, “No Negroes,” and didn’t allow blacks to sit, that’s not “Jim Crow?” I don’t think I can agree here. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/289 "2014-04-18T04:00:05Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > . . . Intent and motivation are separate in the legal context. You can only be correct in a **Bricker** esque appeal to the most persnickety legal definition. In ordinary language, one’s intent in committing a crime, and the reason why one committed a crime, are the same thing. This is, certainly, a fine point of legal nomenclature I was unaware of, but I think it is bad form on your part to rely upon it without acknowledging the validity of the common language. In any case, hate crime laws are a compromise, in that they are more strict than having no rules at all, but are less strict than the laws in, say, Canada. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/290 "2014-04-18T04:11:38Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > So, if a guy had a big sign out, “No Negroes,” and didn’t allow blacks to sit, that’s not “Jim Crow?” I don’t think I can agree here. I think what you’re demonstrating is how people’s understanding of “Jim Crow” has evolved. At one point the term alluded to government enforced segregation but eventually it came to just refer to a future based around the idea blacks were filthy and disgusting and shouldn’t be allowed to mix with white people. At a certain point restaurants weren’t refusing to serve blacks because they were afraid of the government of Alabama but because they were afraid of losing their white customers. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/291 "2014-04-18T04:13:53Z")
I’m not a lawyer but certain areas of law interest me. The distinction seems perfectly reasonable to me and I believe is critical to understanding hate crimes. It is also why I oppose hate crimes since they penalize thoughts. In any event I did not mean to play a semantic game - that’s just how I parsed what you were saying. Here is a bit more on the difference (posting from my phone - towards the middle it illustrates the distinction). > **[motive](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive)** > > Definition of motive in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary I also agree with you with regard to the compromise - originally I misunderstood how you were using the term. I don’t agree with the compromise but I acknowledge that it is one. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/292 "2014-04-18T04:58:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Try2B Comprehensive** > What if we look at who would be most welcoming of the freedom to discriminate through commerce? Would the KKK welcome this change? The Aryan Nation? The posters on Stormfront and Chimpout? White supremacists generally? I think so. > > Why advocate a policy that seems to allow the bad guys to commit more crimes against the vulnerable innocent? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Would you feel the same way about free speech? Shouldn’t writing racist screeds be “a crime” since the the KKK benefits form and advocates for such freedom? Well. One could write a novel in the first person perspective about a pedophile, and that would be perfectly legal. _Harper’s_ magazine this month published a fictional first-person piece about Strauss-Khan’s whoring and raping, and awful as the subject matter was, the piece was trenchant. To actually commit pedophila, however, is a terrible crime. That’s the difference between speech and act; depiction and deed. Discrimination today is nominally banned because the government says so. Is taking the government out of business to allow more racial/religious discrimination a motive for promoting the Libertarian philosophy? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/293 "2014-04-18T05:28:32Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > So, if a guy had a big sign out, “No Negroes,” and didn’t allow blacks to sit, that’s not “Jim Crow?” I don’t think I can agree here. I’m sure you have head the term “Jim Crow South”, right? Ever heard the term “Jim Crow North”? Why is that? And why did you edit out my request for a cite? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/294 "2014-04-18T06:06:31Z")
As an afterthought, the “Jim Crow” laws usually had to do with voting rights, such as the Poll Tax, the Literacy Test, the Property Test, and others. For segregation to exist, it was sufficient that the law not prohibit it. Segregation occurred with the passive permission of the law, but not by formal statute. I’m sure that few towns, counties, or states actually had laws saying, “Blacks can’t eat at all-white restaurants.” Instead, restaurant owners were free to discriminate, and the law would back them up in the rare cases when anyone tried to object. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/295 "2014-04-18T06:07:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > . . . And why did you edit out my request for a cite? It was not a part of your point of debate. Deleting it did not change the meaning of your post. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/296 "2014-04-18T06:51:00Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > As an afterthought, the “Jim Crow” laws usually had to do with voting rights, such as the Poll Tax, the Literacy Test, the Property Test, and others. > > For segregation to exist, it was sufficient that the law not prohibit it. Segregation occurred with the passive permission of the law, but not by formal statute. I’m sure that few towns, counties, or states actually had laws saying, “Blacks can’t eat at all-white restaurants.” Instead, restaurant owners were free to discriminate, and the law would back them up in the rare cases when anyone tried to object. You know, it’s kind of silly for us to argue about this in the abstract when the actual point of debate was the specific question raised by **Miller** in his post: > [@](#): > > I’d like to see a response to this, too. And an addendum: if we switched to a libertarian form of government, and despite your\* expectations, Jim Crow did come back full force, would that be sufficient for you to change your mind about the advisability of anti-discrimination laws? Emphasis added. Now, if **Miller** wants to come back and say that what he meant by that phrase was “government can’t discriminate, but private businesses can”, then I will say he’s misusing the term. Surely the qualifier “full force” means government can and does discriminate. No? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/297 "2014-04-18T06:53:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You know, it’s kind of silly for us to argue about this in the abstract when the actual point of debate was the question raised by **Miller** in his post: > > Emphasis added. Now, if **Miller** wants to come back and say that what he meant by that phrase was “government can’t discriminate, but private businesses can”, then I will say he’s misusing the term. Surely the qualifier “full force” means government can and does discriminate. No? So then is what you’re saying you think the New York State government of the 1930s was right to not sanction the Cotton Club for refusing to allow blacks to be guests? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/298 "2014-04-18T06:57:29Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then is what you’re saying you think the New York State government of the 1930s was right to not sanction the Cotton Club for refusing to allow blacks to be guests? Not to be snarky or anything, but did you read the OP\* or any of this thread? If so, do you really not know the answer to that? \*And the clarification in post 5. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/299 "2014-04-18T07:01:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The benefit is not from allowing businesses to discriminate - that is a cost. It is an objectively negative thing as I see it. However, the overall benefit is getting government out of business. It’s allowing businesses to operate free of other stifling regulation. Each specific regulation could be argued individually on their merits, or we can do away with them wholesale and accept the good with the bad. This is a little confusing to me, so I apologize if I’m misstating your position, but it seems to me that you’re saying that there’s no actual drawback to preventing businesses from discriminating, and you’re only opposed to it on the ideological principle that government shouldn’t be involved in business. That’s not really a very compelling argument. You’re basically saying (if I’m understanding you correctly) that, under a libertarian system, there would be more public discrimination, and while that could be prevented without any harm to society over all, it’s better if people (who are not you) suffer to some undefined degree, rather than compromise an absolutist ideology. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth or misrepresent you in anyway, there - I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from, and that’s my honest impression of the position you’re advocating. If I’m wrong, I welcome any correction. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > Libertarians as a general rule do not view minorities as weak people in either the political or practical sense. We believe that all types of people have the ability to survive and thrive on their own as long as governmental, institutional obstacles do not favor any race, ethnicity or religion. We find the idea that they need special help as individuals both presumptive and patronizing when it comes from people with other political ideologies. Well, speaking as someone who (unlike yourself) is actually at risk at being discriminated against if these protections are repealed, I can’t really agree with you there. I’ve known too many smart, funny, compassionate, and terribly brave people who have been absolutely broken by having to deal with the prevalent homophobia in American society. I’ve spent too much time looking at gay teen suicide stats, and rates of depression, alcohol abuse, and drug addiction among LGBT people to have such a pollyannaish view of being a minority member of American society. I’m trying not to go on the attack, here, but there’s an element of frustration in having a group of straight white men lecture me on the best way to deal with being a minority in this country. I’m not trying to say that straight white people can’t participate in the discussion, but the fact is, if you’re wrong about this, it’s going to have almost no real effect on your life at all. I mostly agree with **Stringbean** on the odds he gave of full-blown Jim Crow coming back if these sorts of law are repealed. But, even if it’s only a 2% chance - even if it’s only a .02% chance - why the fuck would any sane person take that risk? Particularly as no one has been able to present a drawback to these sorts of laws, except that it would result in a less ideologically pure form libertarianism? > [@Stringbean](#): > > It would be, for me. But I also consider that hypothetical a 2 on the scale of 1-100 in terms of probability, so it doesn’t convince me that in 2014 the government needs to be excessively vigilant on protecting racial minorities. At some point, absent _evidence_ of discrimination, such laws serve no purpose. Here’s the thing about that. Prior to Stonewall, and the contemporary gay rights movement, there was one other time and place where gay people could be open, and celebrate there lives and loves in relative safety and acceptance. That place was Weimar Berlin. We like to think that civilization moves always in one direction, towards better and more enlightened attitudes. But that’s not the case. Societies backslide. People can relearn old hatreds. While I really do believe that we’ve made real and permanent gains in the acceptance of homosexuality, there is always the possibility of a backlash, of a reactionary turn back to prejudice and discrimination. I have been extraordinarily lucky to be born into a time and place where I’ve been touched only very lightly by homophobia. I feel a very strong duty to do what I can to use the privilege I have now to ensure that future generations enjoy the same safety I have, and strong legal protections for gender and sexuality are an integral part of that. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Jim Crow was government enforced segregation. That is the _sine qua non_ of Jim Crow. If that happened, the people would have chosen to abandon Libertarianism. Don’t be obtuse, **John**. The systematic discrimination in the South was carried out by both public and private entities. The totality of that system is commonly described as “Jim Crow.” If you disagree with that definition of the term, I honestly don’t give a shit. It’s a lot shorter to type than “the systematic discrimination in the South by both public and private entities,” and I intend to use it in that sense for the rest of this thread. > [@](#): > > As for his other points, they’ve already been addressed. He thinks blacks would be herded into ghettos and some of us don’t think that would happen. Each of us has to decide whether or not that would happen-- it cannot be proven, AFACT. Well, it could be proven by adopting a libertarian system of government, and seeing if it happened. Which was the point of my hypothetical, which I will rephrase in deference to your **Bricker** ian legal hairsplitting - if we adopted libertarianism, and it resulted in a return of widespread private discrimination, roughly on par with that that existed in the US (particularly in the South) in the 1950s, would you support a restoration of anti-discrimination laws? Again, just to be clear, I’m not asking if you think that’s likely. I’m asking how you would react if, against all odds, that actually happened. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2014, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118/300 "2014-04-18T07:07:23Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Don’t be obtuse, **John**. The systematic discrimination in the South was carried out by both public and private entities. The totality of that system is commonly described as “Jim Crow.” If you disagree with that definition of the term, I honestly don’t give a shit. It’s a lot shorter to type than “the systematic discrimination in the South by both public and private entities,” and I intend to use it in that sense for the rest of this thread. If by “obtuse” you mean “agreeing with you”, then I guess i’m being obtuse. I’m using that term exactly as you described. But a system of government in which there are laws like the ones that existed in the Jim Crow era cannot be called Libertarian. If you think it can, then we probably don’t have much to debate. Please see my further elaboration in post 296. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-topic-of-the-week-1-civil-rights/686118.md?page=16)