# No, the free market will not protect civil rights (or 'why the Civil Rights Act is still needed) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982 "2014-02-10T16:30:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/81 "2014-02-10T19:43:23Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I’m not sure I understand this. To the extent that “sundown towns” exist (like the example of Vidor above) becuase of a reputation of historic racism or the actual racist attitudes of current residents, the CRA can’t stop them. To the extent that they exist becuase of town policy (official or unofficial) and harrassment by law enforcement or the enforcement of restrictive covenants, these are not permitted even absent the CRA. The CRA can stop businesses from turning away black customers, which was a big part of sundown towns. Some towns might still get away with it, but what they’re doing is still illegal, and violates Title II of the CRA. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/82 "2014-02-10T19:59:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The CRA can stop businesses from turning away black customers, which was a big part of sundown towns. Some towns might still get away with it, but what they’re doing is still illegal, and violates Title II of the CRA. Perhaps, but the whole premise (as I understand it) of the sundown town was that you had to be out at sundown. Vidor appears to be a decent example: the article stresses that there are a number of blacks who shop in town, but they don’t live there. The racist that **Great Antibob** references is okay with black customers, but no black neighbors. And that’s certainly reprehensible, but my point is that that doesn’t sound like it would be much different without Title II. The enforcement mechanism for sundown towns sounds like police harrassment and refusing to let blacks move in; I’m not sure its the CRA that stops that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/83 "2014-02-10T20:01:28Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Perhaps, but the whole premise (as I understand it) of the sundown town was that you had to be out at sundown. Vidor appears to be a decent example: the article stresses that there are a number of blacks who shop in town, but they don’t live there. The racist that **Great Antibob** references is okay with black customers, but no black neighbors. And that’s certainly reprehensible, but my point is that that doesn’t sound like it would be much different without Title II. The enforcement mechanism for sundown towns sounds like police harrassment and refusing to let blacks move in; I’m not sure its the CRA that stops that. It’s also about no black people eating in restaurants after dark, staying in hotels, going to movies, etc. The CRA does stop these things. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/84 "2014-02-10T20:01:40Z")
The OP is not entirely right: The free market would, in fact, protect civil rights, if allowed a long enough time on the problem. The difficulty is that “a long enough time” would be very, very long, far longer than is acceptable. The invisible hand grinds fine, but it grinds exceeding slow. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/85 "2014-02-10T20:02:28Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > The enforcement mechanism for sundown towns sounds like police harrassment and refusing to let blacks move in; I’m not sure its the CRA that stops that. Sure it does. That’s a classic § 1983 issue. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/86 "2014-02-10T20:02:46Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The OP is not entirely right: The free market would, in fact, protect civil rights, if allowed a long enough time on the problem. How on earth could you know this for certain? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/87 "2014-02-10T20:03:03Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The OP is not entirely right: The free market would, in fact, protect civil rights, if allowed a long enough time on the problem. The difficulty is that “a long enough time” would be very, very long, far longer than is acceptable. The invisible hand grinds fine, but it grinds exceeding slow. Is there real life evidence of this happening elsewhere? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/88 "2014-02-10T20:12:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure it does. That’s a classic § 1983 issue. If you’re pointing out that 1983 was enacted as part of a civil rights act, then I would note that we’re talking about a different Civil Rights Act (the one of 1964) and, then, only Title II. If you’re being less pedantic then 1) shame on you and 2) the federal rights that are a play in a 1983 suit for police harassment are not derived from (any) Civil Rights Act. The same is true for town policies. I don’t think you can bring a 1983 suit for restrictive covenants, though. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/89 "2014-02-10T20:15:39Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is there real life evidence of this happening elsewhere? He said it’s slow. There will be no racism after the heat-death of the universe. Except in Mississippi. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/90 "2014-02-10T20:45:06Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The CRA was passed with a backdrop of large scale violence against black people. If you said the reason to pass this private-property upending bill was so black people wouldn’t have to drive 3 more miles to get a hamburger, the bill wouldn’t have been passed. That is why when people say sundown towns are why we need the CRA, it is woefully inadequate. Black people only had to walk a few feet to get to the right water fountain. Should we bring that back also? BTW, much of the violence was a result of them trying to assert their rights. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/91 "2014-02-10T20:54:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So you’re seriously arguing that the CRA and associated legislation has had nothing to do with the elimination of lynchings, segregation, the near-elimination of turning away black people from restaurants, and related phenomena? You can’t be serious. You group these things together like they are one and the same. You either don’t understand the difference between a lynching and turning black people away from a restaurant, or you are a demagogue. Either way i’m about done with you. You don’t see anyone else suggesting these things are the same. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You conveniently forget the word ‘segregation’ (and sundown towns) in my statement. It was not just the state that oppressed black people. It was groups of white business owners, ‘concerned citizens’ councils’, and the like. And it continued for decades, even after the CRA, in the aforementioned sundown towns. No i just thought you made an innacurate statement out of either sloppiness or ignorance, so i jumped on that part of your statement. > [@](#): > > Seriously, are you just OK with sundown towns? You don’t think it’s a problem if black people suddenly are unable to drive from town A to town C because town B won’t let them get gas? I don’t think the presence of sundown towns between point a and point c to be any larger a problem than the presence of a desert between point a and point c. As long as the sundown towns were not committing violence on the passers-by. And i mean the definition of “violence” commonplace in American society. > [@Honesty](#): > > Uh, Jim Crow laws were passed by State Legislatures. > > - Honesty Thanks for bolstering my claim. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is a good point- it took _Federal Government_ action to end the discriminatory laws passed by many states and localities. It’s a bit disturbing when you capitalize federal government as you celebrate its use of force. Aside from that, the actions of state governments are the actions of governments nonetheless. > [@Deeg](#): > > The Montgomery bus lines were operated by [National City Lines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines) during Rosa Parks’ protest. While there were some local laws requiring some segregation the bus lines took oppression much further, like collecting fairs from black customers and then leaving them behind before they could use the back door. The free market was failing in this instance. You realize a boycott is a market mechanism, correct? > [@](#): > > For the free market to work in a given situation there are a few axioms that are required, including: > [ul] > [li]Most actors act rationally.[/li][li]Freedom from outside, non-market forces.[/li][/ul] > > If these axioms are true then I believe that market forces can overcome racism. The South prior to the CRA did not fit those axioms. The South after the CRA does not fit those axioms. Government intrusion into property rights is a non-market force. The government prior to the CRA wasn’t even protecting property rights or enforcing laws against violence, so you’re right, it wasn’t a free market. If the government (even the federal government) would have stepped in and stopped the violence, and left property rights intact, I would have had no problem with that. The CRA went too far. > [@](#): > > Today most of the US probably does fit and we could probably appeal the CRA with only a few pockets returning to systemic racism. > > But why would we do that? It’s not like the CRA is a major burden on the market and even now it helps prevent some racism. Well I disagree that it helps prevent racism, but the fact that it exists isn’t a big deal, yeah. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/92 "2014-02-10T20:54:31Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Never said racism wasn’t a problem. I would say that government doesn’t decrease racism, but i haven’t thus far. Until now. Were you around in 1964? I was. The government can’t make racism vanish from the hearts of racists, but it can foster an environment where people get to interact with each other as equals. I’d say that when racist store owners were forced to serve all, they found out the world was not going to end after all. Racism is hardly over, but we live in a much less racist society today than 50 years ago and the CRA is one big reason why. It is not like anyone starved back then - but you ate in your part of town. I guess that is fine in your view. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/93 "2014-02-10T20:57:42Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > If you’re pointing out that 1983 was enacted as part of a civil rights act, then I would note that we’re talking about a different Civil Rights Act (the one of 1964) and, then, only Title II. > > If you’re being less pedantic then 1) shame on you and 2) the federal rights that are a play in a 1983 suit for police harassment are not derived from (any) Civil Rights Act. The same is true for town policies. I don’t think you can bring a 1983 suit for restrictive covenants, though. Actually, I never realized until now that 1983 was part of the 1871 Act and not the 1964 Act. As to the latter, sure you can, assuming you can. See _McCord v. Alabama_, 364 Fed.Appx. 590, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/94 "2014-02-10T21:03:58Z")
Four people of the wrong type enter a lunch counter and sit down. They are dressed as well or better as the customers of the right type, and they show that they have more than enough money to pay for their food. The owner, being a racist, refuses to serve them. He calls the police. What should the police do? Trespassing? Hardly - sitting at an open lunch counter is hardly trespassing. Throw them out? Then the state is actively racist. Do nothing? Then the state is not supporting the “right” of the owner to be racist. Do nothing and hope they go away? What if more of the wrong people come, and fill up the lunch counter? Sure, they leave at closing time, but are right there again in the morning. The state can’t be neutral. It must either enforce discrimination, as it did back then, or enforce the rights of all, which it mostly does now. Which do you choose? ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/95 "2014-02-10T21:05:53Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > It’s a bit disturbing when you capitalize federal government as you celebrate its use of force. Can you please specify which “use of force” is being celebrated here, just so it’s entirely clear? I don’t want to read into your words. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/96 "2014-02-10T21:11:25Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Black people only had to walk a few feet to get to the right water fountain. Should we bring that back also? What is this “we”? I am not a water fountain owner, and if I were I wouldn’t discriminate. If it was a government water fountain, then no, the government shouldn’t discriminate. > [@](#): > > BTW, much of the violence was a result of them trying to assert their rights. Well it depends which rights they were asserting. If it were, say, rights to government services and right to go unmolested on public property then they were in the right. If it were their “rights” to make Cracker Bob cook them a hamburger, then they were wrong. > [@Voyager](#): > > Were you around in 1964? I was. The government can’t make racism vanish from the hearts of racists, but it can foster an environment where people get to interact with each other as equals. I’d say that when racist store owners were forced to serve all, they found out the world was not going to end after all. > Racism is hardly over, but we live in a much less racist society today than 50 years ago and the CRA is one big reason why. I think you’re wrong. You can’t prove that. In fact racism was decreasing in the period up to the CRA, so your claim is on shaky ground indeed. No doubt you’ll provide us with an interesting anecdote about your very interesting life, but I won’t accept that as evidence of anything but the confirmation bias of a true believer. > [@](#): > > It is not like anyone starved back then - but you ate in your part of town. I guess that is fine in your view. It’s unfortunate that you folks were so afraid of black people back then that you dined in your own part of town. As to what I’m ok with: I’m ok with folks making decisions about where they eat. I’m ok with folks making decisions about who they serve in their restaurant. I’m not ok with violence by any individual on another. I’m also not ok with governments failing to recognize and protect property rights. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/97 "2014-02-10T21:12:21Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > It’s a bit disturbing when you capitalize federal government as you celebrate its use of force. No-what’s disturbing here is your assumption that one could only mean the other. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/98 "2014-02-10T21:12:41Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > I provided an example of 91%chance of discrimination when looking for housing. You continue to ask for cites showing that some places wish to discrimination - this implies that you think 91% isn’t high enough. > > So I ask; > > Have I sufficiently proven that some places even now try to discriminate, or do you think 91% levels of discrimination is an acceptable number? I don’t recall that I’ve ever asked anything about “discrimination” in this thread, or even used the word prior to now. Not surprising that you’d claim that I did, though. It’s [not the first time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16927779&postcount=126) you’ve made an untrue statement about what I’ve said. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/99 "2014-02-10T21:14:16Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I don’t recall that I’ve ever asked anything about “discrimination” in this thread, or even used the word prior to now. > > Not surprising that you’d claim that I did, though. It’s [not the first time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16927779&postcount=126) you’ve made an untrue statement about what I’ve said. Reminding people that you think people who burn down mosques are pro freedom of religion, while people who think others should be allowed to worship as they choose are not, is likely not very productive in a thread about civil rights legislation. Especially after you already interjected a random bit of bigotry for no real reason in here earlier. In case it wasn’t clear, the 91% was meant as evidence that “sundown towns” would be making a return - some places refuse to let the ‘wrong kind’ of people live in them _already_. I have posted proof of this. Thus, when it becomes legal for them to do so, they will just be even more open about the discrimination they are already carrying out. Is that clear now? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982/100 "2014-02-10T21:15:04Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I’m also not ok with governments failing to recognize and protect property rights. So, when it comes to which you support more, human rights or property rights, your answer would be…? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-the-free-market-will-not-protect-civil-rights-or-why-the-civil-rights-act-is-still-needed/680982.md?page=6)