Stupidity abounds.
A stupid and incorrect analogy. Try again.
Why isn’t it? If all the African Americans in Alabama decided to boycott a racist business they could easily drive it to bankruptcy, just like the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
The assumption in this thread is that the restaurant owner is the only one with power [eta which was true during segregation era Southern US].
You guys are way too fixated on one specific area of the US at one specific time in US history relating on one specific form of discrimination.
Currently there is nothing forcing whites to spend money at black owned restaurants, why is that? A black restaurant owner and a black customer will equally feel the sting of discrimination. One needs money they other needs food, both represent property.
It doesn’t take a cabal of businesses to refuse service, just one. It doesn’t take a corporation to make that difference, just one owner of the resources. We already know such individuals are willing and able to discriminate in such fashions and continue to operate without a problem. The situation isn’t parallel. It is organized to already not be parallel. If it were parallel, we wouldn’t actually have businesses, righties, and libertarians crying about government interference in the first place, because no one would ask the government to interfere on their behalf, because they’d just do it.
Not the only one with power. Individuals in libertaria aren’t powerless exactly. But that doesn’t mean the situation is parallel. An innocent man arrested for a crime he didn’t commit, in handcuffs, awaiting trial isn’t powerless. This doesn’t make him have the same power as the prosecutor or jurors.
It’s not that this example is necessarily the most relevant example. It’s that we already know how things will go, because of this evidence.
You have yet to actually articulate why it isn’t parallel, and simply stating it over and over again doesn’t help. Like Der Tris you have your bias against businesses. You think they have some sort of power they don’t. And you seem to see customers as unwilling participants.
“discriminating against businesses is not the same as businesses discriminating against their customers.”
Why? A businessman that doesn’t get paid goes hungry just the same as a customer that is refused service.
And it’s already been shown that many parts of the US had restaurants that served African Americans. The “white only” restaurants were limited to a rather specific area of the US, other regions were more than happy to have more paying customers. If I knew right now of an area where a segment of society was refused a service they demanded I’d be happy to fill that niche.
If Best Buy refused to sell iPads in Alabama I’d load a truck up tonight and be there in the morning.
I explained the situation directly, and then even made a nice helpful analogy to explain.
I am very pro-business. I just don’t think that being pro-business entails giving business owners a blank check on behavior.
You simply read into that. Customers do have power, there is no question of this. All I said was that the situation of
A) one customer denying his service to the business
is not parallel to
B) one business denying service to a customer
To illustrate why you think they are parallel, you already have to have a gaggle of customers acting in concord at the level of protesting to get a business to budge. And all you’re asking for is the business to simply refuse service. These are not parallel situations. Yes, I keep repeating it. Because it keeps being true.
That situation, where the business is just one dude, who is barely scraping by—maybe a hot dog vendor with one customer, yep, that’s parallel. If all libertarians defended were single-person, single-serving businesses, then as I illustrated above, the situations would be parallel but that is not what libertarians propose.
They propose a decidedly unequal society. They have their justifications, like, people are unequal, put forth unequal effort, and so on, and those who succeed “deserve” their success. I am not even arguing that. But it means we have agreed at the outset that we will have organized libertaria to have tipped the balance one way. To then turn around and say it’s still parallel, everyone still has the same power is factually incorrect. The entire purpose is to let wealth and its power accumulate to those who would “best” use it or who “deserve” it.
This is therefore already accepted to be a situation where people are not interacting in a reciprocal fashion. It is not parallel. The whole point is to not be parallel. Indeed, if it were parallel, the entire justification for libertarian economies would vanish.
Not only that. The Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation. They didn’t allow it. They mandated it. To draw some kind of parallel or similarity between that and the libertarian model is pure dishonesty.
Are you under the mistaken impression that segregation was de jure over the entire country, or am I under the mistaken impression that we were discussing the whole country?
emacknight: You guys are way too fixated on one specific area of the US at one specific time in US history relating on one specific form of discrimination.
erislover: It’s not that this example is necessarily the most relevant example. It’s that we already know how things will go, because of this evidence.
Terr: The Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation. They didn’t allow it. They mandated it. To draw some kind of parallel or similarity between that and the libertarian model is pure dishonesty.
So then you are talking about only these areas. You are aware that segregation was voluntary in places where such laws weren’t passed, right?
Some places were segregated. Some, next door, weren’t. And?
You claimed that you “know how things will go” based on history. So - let’s say that the Civil Rights Act is suspended tomorrow. Do you see businesses rushing to segregate?
I seemed to have walked into the wrong conversation. The point of segregation, in my mind, was that it was illustrative of what people were willing to do. It was not meant as a suggestion that white-only businesses would suddenly rise up out of the woodwork. If the conversation was the assertion that indeed white-only businesses would pop up out of the woodwork, then I have been mistaken and would back out.
What’s the point of having the Act right now? And how else could I interpret your “know how things will go” remark? Not “how things went”. But how they “will go”.
I fear that I cannot clarify my remarks further. Any additional commentary will only serve to confuse the situation.
Overt segregation’s time is probably over. I would suspect it still serves a purpose, but I don’t have a statistics on court cases handy to demonstrate this. I do recall there being a series of ads against discrimination in housing here in Massachusetts, so someone out there besides me still thinks it is a problem.