You mean post #5 where you say “it is a good thing”?
I was giving you a chance to clarify and for the record.
You’ve rather foolishly tried to blame on the government what what was often done by private businesses and you’ve effectively conceded that true libertarians stood with the segregationists and segregationist apologists like Barry Goldwater over the integrationists like Martin Luther King.
First of all, if you’re going to say “Jim Crow Full Force” and expect people to think you’re not referring to Government Enforced Discrimination, then we’re hardly in Brickerian hair splitting territory. Don’t blame me for significant impression in your chose of words.
Having gotten that out of the way, the answer is… Yes, but only if it was sustainable over time. As I’ve said several times, I don’t think that systematic discrimination in the private sector is sustainable so long as the government is not participating in that discrimination. So, I’m not particularly worried about your hypothetical.
Nope, I’ve stated explicitly that I said there would be instances of discrimination by private enterprises in Libertaria. That is perfectly consistent with acknowledging that situations like you described would exist.
And if you want to continue debating with me, I’d suggest you not claim that I’ve “foolishly” done things that I have not done. There are lots of people posting in this thread who don’t take such an antagonistic tone, and given limited time, my preference is going to be to debate with them.
Sustainable? So, like, if it was only two or three years of back of the bus, whites only lunch counters, and “this is a Christian company,” well, people (who, again, aren’t you) will just have to deal with it, because otherwise…
I’m sorry. What was the “otherwise” again?
You missed the other important term: systematic. If the odd screw-ball company didn’t want to hire blacks, then I’m not too concerned.
And if there was serious widespread discrimination that would self-correct in 2 years, I would not suggest passing a law to fix it. It would probably take that long to prove that a law was needed and then to actually pass it.
John, I’m not attacking you and I’m genuinely sorry if the word “foolishly” to describe some of your arguments upsets you but you seem to downplay just how common such segregation would be in libertania.
Respectfully, and I say this as someone who makes strong arguments, if you can’t take your arguments being criticized then you shouldn’t put them forward.
NYC of the 20-60s was not under Jim Crow laws but was effectively a heavily segregated society desegregated only through the use of government power.
How exactly would libertariania have convinced the Mad Men era to go against their rational economic interests?
Still waiting on that “otherwise,” John.
Look. You asked me about the Cotton Club and I responded. Then you claimed I “foolishly” did something I didn’t do. You now want to move the goalpost and claim it’s my fault that you put the goalpost where you did in the first place. You bet I’m going to protest against that kind of “criticism”.
Separate but Equal had been the law of the land in the US since the 1890s. The military was segregated. Segregation was not just some affair of the private sector. If you want to posit that NYC was essentially Libertaria, with the government unable to discriminate by race, then you’re going to have to prove it.
It’s unfortunate that we don’t have an actual test case, but bringing up references to places which are significantly different than they would be in Libertaria proves nothing.
Otherwise nothing. I honestly don’t understand what point your trying to make that hasn’t already beed addressed in this thread. Not all social ills need the heavy hand of the government to fix them. That’s one of them, IMO.
Okay, let me try it this way.
Let’s take your version of how things would work out. We adopt a libertarian system of government, and laws against racial and gender discrimination are removed. For the most part, society doesn’t change too much in regards to race relations. Some outliers take the opportunity to discriminate, but they’re fairly rare. *Maybe *one or two towns effectively become “sundown” towns. The total number of people whose lives are seriously disrupted is less than a thousand. Which, we all agree, is very unfortunate for them, and the people who fired/evicted/whatever them are gigantic dickheads. But in the long term, it’s for the best, because by removing those laws, we have achieved and/or avoided _______________ .
You get to fill in the blank.
Yes. Because that’s how it works in the real world! Murder is wrong, but shooting the supervillain before he presses the button to dunk the orphans into the vat of acid is unquestionably a good thing. So is shooting the serial killer who is stalking you and your family in your house. Free speech is good; yelling fire in a crowded theater is not. Unassailable property rights are nice; not having any sort of publicly funded resources is not. That’s just how things work in real life.
The thing is, such rationalizations can and generally do lead to good things. Abridging property rights and engaging in “armed robbery” (not that you hold this position, but there are many who do) for the sake of having a central government that can provide things like efficient medical care, a basic standard of living for the poor, and protection from those who would breat the law is definitely both a rationalization and a good thing. And yes, certain, Nazi Germany was a rationalization. But here’s the thing: we all have the capacity to reason. We all can look at a situation where such a rationalization is being made and say, “Is this a good thing, y/n?” By all means, hold certain basic freedoms beyond reproach - the right to protest, for example. C0nc0rdance talks about “first generation freedoms” at about 4 minutes in and I largely agree with him; however, the fact remains that by cutting slightly into certain rights (primarily property rights), society simply gets better.
Fair enough, I misinterpreted you, but I don’t think I can agree with that. Individual liberty is a means towards the end of happiness and a functional society. Not an end in and of itself. Maybe this is just me not getting it, but I feel like that would be like holding up “Playing Rock Band” as an end in and of itself. Obviously, it isn’t - it’s a means towards having fun, which is itself a means towards being happy.
Okay, so bigotry and discrimination are bad things that are detrimental to society.
However, the goal of keeping government out of business is valued more than the detriment to society. Rather than argue each potential regulation, we should accept the good with the bad in order to uphold the primary principle that government should stay out of business.
So, when Joe opens up Slaves 'R Us, selling slaves, who is going to stop him? We should uphold the principle that government should stay out of business, even if the net result is a detriment to society, right?
Now, John Mace is going to come back to say that in Libertaria, people’s freedom is the utmost, so a slave selling business is not libertarian. But we’re taking the good with the bad and accepting the principle that government should not be involved in businesses.
What about insanity defences? If I go off and kill someone because I just don’t like them, while someone else goes off and kills someone because they’re secretly an alien from the planet Zog, here to steal our air, there’s going to be two different outcomes for us at trial. Both of us meant to kill. Intent was the same. Motivation is why we’re going to be treated differently.
The same government that will stop Bill from setting up Murder 'R Us or Thievery 'R Us. But just so you know, the issue of slavery was dealt with much earlier in the thread.
I think that if such a situation were to come to pass, and there was persistent, widespread scenario where significant portions of society were unable to escape such abuses, then I think it would be fair to consider governmental intervention. This wouldn’t *necessarily *be the same type of anti-discrimination laws we have today but I wouldn’t preclude it. Ideally it would be something less intrusive but that’s policy not philosophy. I think the chances of this happening are extremely slight.
(my bold)
It’s not that far off from the point I’m trying to make, though not precisely. The bolded part I don’t agree with. And btw, I’m not a straight white male, though it makes no difference in the merit of the argument.
Here’s a real world example. A business owner can have to under-performing individuals, one white male, the other in a protected class. In determining which one to fire, all other things being equal, the white male is the logical choice. This is because they have less basis to sue and therefore presents a lower risk. Even if the scale was tilted against the person in the protected class, the white male remains the logical choice until the increased risk of firing the person in the protected class is exceeded by the under-performance of the white male. That’s a bad thing, do you agree? This is the current business landscape. Overall this leads to a less efficient business and a detriment to the economy overall, all other things being equal.
Now, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say that in that example, the potential costs of risk avoidance are worth the benefits of reducing discrimination. The libertarian will say that rather than argue each individual circumstances, while not ignoring the downside potential, to accept that there will be instances of a bad result, but the umbrella of getting out of business is more worthwhile.
There’s not really anything I can respond to in this post that wouldn’t be restating what I’ve already said. I think it’s fair to say we disagree on some fundamental values.
Just as it’s shorter to type, “the systematic discrimination in the South by both public and private entities”, it’s a lot shorter to not have to type out that of course slavery would not be permitted and would be squashed by the law enforcement arm of the government. In fact, I did write that earlier in the thread.
If you would strike the last two lines (out of four), I think that is a decent high level summation.
Quashed, Bone. Quashed. 
What’s your best shot, John Mace, at convincing me that my worries about the return of significant numbers of sundown towns (and the like) upon instituting libertarian government ideals are unfounded?
And, as a follow up, if you agreed with me that they would return, would you still support repealing Title II?
I think this is being ignorant about history. Slavery in the United States predates the government- it predates even the Colonial era. The very first Europeans who settled on Barbados or in Virginia or the Carolinas brought slaves with them. Some of the earliest institutions formed around cooperating to keep the slaves in line. It was ‘sustained, private sector discrimination’ all the way, in the absence of any government at all.
This seems like a blind spot in Libertarian thinking. If we’re going to handwave away the potential effects of allowing discrimination in commerce, I have to wonder if allowing more discrimination is one of the motives for promoting Libertarianism.
The thing about theory and practice; in theory, they have identical outcomes, but in practice, they do not. Your above point makes just enough sense to make it plausible, but tends to ignore both historical counter-examples and current day practice.
As sketched out, the above scenario does seem ‘a bad thing.’ However, does it seem worse than the historical pattern of non-white, non-male, non-christian(of whatever dominant flavor) being last hired, first fired? I do not even attribute malice to business owners in this, simply a function of wanting to be surrounded by people like one’s self. However, given that capital has historically been concentrated in a small number of hands, the secondary effect of lockout from the economy seems the greater evil (along the same lines as sundown towns, I suppose). Further, whether your risk weighing goes on or not, it still remains that the majority group holds the vast majorit of capital, and among employees, the greater percentages (as a part of the workforce) among mid and upper level management. I suppose you could call the current state of affairs ‘reverse’ something or other, but that begs the question- do you propose any alternative fix? Do you acknowledge that any fix is needed? And do you belong to the group that has historically had the advantage?
If you see this as tolerable, or a fairly arrived at result, I will join those with whom you have a fundamental difference in values.
After all, it does not seem as though we are approaching this from a “Day 1 of Libertopia, everyone begins with x dollars and x land.” We are continuing a story in which one side has already racked up a high score and drawn the board to continue it. And the civil rights under discussion do tend to be the sort that have a direct impact on economic participation.
There are 30M blacks that live in the US. While some local yokel businessman might want to exclude them and not worry about a boycott, national chains are not going to risk giving up the business of that large a number of customers, plus the whites and folks of other races that would boycott them. To the extent that those towns are off the map of the national chains, then I would just say this: Would you, today, if you were black, plan a vacation in the middle of the Ozarks at a town that is 97% white with a population of 2,200? I wouldn’t.
More later, but I gotta do some work right now.
Maybe. My primary concern is not Libertarian philosophy (which is why I’m not one of them) is that society has to work. There has to be be some semblance of civil order and we don’t want to see people starving in the streets. To the extent we have problems along those lines, then the Libertarian ideal goes out the window.
But if there were just a smattering of tiny towns in them middle of nowhere that excluded some group, no. Those towns are welcome to wallow in their bigotry and suffer the consequences of excluding themselves from mainstream America.