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.
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.
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.
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:
Emphasis added. “Jim Crow” is short for “Jim Crow Laws”, in the context of racial discrimination.
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.
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.
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.
You can only be correct in a Brickeresque 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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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?
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.
It was not a part of your point of debate. Deleting it did not change the meaning of your post.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 Brickerian 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.
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.