From what I see, McCord’s case gets dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds. Which is kinda the point, who do you bring a 1983 suit against for a restrictive covenant?
The federal government’s use of force in destroying property rights.
That’s where you went wrong, bud.
How so? If the owner of the lunch counter were in the establishment of the 4 people, and they had him ejected by the state, how would that be racist? Can the state simultaneously be pro and anti black? Pro and anti white?
The state could enforce property rights.
what the hell is a human right? Are you talking of the “rights” that ebb and flow with the caprices of the majority?
Back in the day, black drivers had a Negro Motorist Green Book to tell them where such entrepreneurs as you describe would welcome them. Nevertheless, there was a big problem.
With black motorists finding respite, or the state failing to punish those that aggressed against black people? Don’t be so mysterious.
And I haven’t suggested they’re the same, Mr. Puts-words-in-my-mouth. They’re not identical, but they are closely linked historically. Yes, lynching is worse than denying someone service. But acting like the two have nothing to do with each other, which you are implying, shows a poor understanding of history.
Except that I didn’t make an inaccurate statement.
Got it. You’re OK, apparently, with a scenario, which existed in many parts of US history, in which it was significantly more difficult for black people to get by in day-to-day life because of the ‘small potatoes’ (as you call them) decisions of racist white people. As long as they weren’t lynching them, it’s OK with you.
It’s a bit disturbing that you read my capitalization and italics as anything but a sense of emphasis. It’s a bit disturbing when you belittle and ignore the repression of rights of non-state actors in US history.
So you agree that action from the Federal government was required to protect individual rights from state government oppression?
Of course – boycotts have historically been used (sometimes) as a means of oppression. The CRA does not prevent boycotts, of course, nor should it. But I’m glad you agree that the free market is often used as a tool of oppression.
The South never fit these axioms, by and large. The economic actors were never rational (for the most part) in the South.
So you would have had no problem with continuing sundown towns, I take it. As long as there’s no violence.
You really don’t seem to know much about what real life in America was like for black people before the 60s.
It prevents discrimination, and prosecutes discriminators. This is a fact – cases are still brought to trial on Civil Rights violations.
With black motorists finding services. It’s a big problem when black motorists are habitually stranded between towns because no hotel would take them, no gas station would serve them, etc.
I don not think that people who burn down mosques are pro freedom of religion, nor have I ever said that I do.
I’m glad you’ve come to an agreement that the tea party is anti freedom of religion, and that liberals are pro-freedom of religion. This would have been much easier had you simply apologized in the original thread, rather than abandoned it when presented with evidence like you have a persistent habit of doing.
Now, will you stop derailing this thread and tell me just what kind of evidence you want that the sundown towns would exist once more, if the evidence I gave was not good enough? What WOULD convince you?
I’ve come to no such agreement, nor said anything which gives any indication that I have. You’re wrong yet again.
I’ve no clue what you’re talking about. Since you’re the one who keeps making false statements about me, shouldn’t you be the one who apologizes to me?
I don’t recall you posting proof of any such thing. The only outside link that you posted was in post #21, to this, which makes no mention of any place refusing to let any person live anywhere.
What the hell is a property right? Are you talking of the “rights” that ebb and flow with the caprices of the majority?
So - what is the reason CRA is required now?
Here is one reason – based on our history, many state and local governments cannot be trusted to protect the rights of black people and other minorities in their jurisdictions. Therefore, the Federal government must be able to investigate and prosecute violations, in case the state or local authorities refuse to.
So this libertarian backlash to the CRA, is basically the anti-vaxer argument. We don’t need vaccines, no one gets those diseases any more!
Did the bus boycott achieve its aims solely through market pressure? No, a Federal lawsuit was still required.
The Southern State governments weren’t protecting property rights. It required the Federal CRA to trump the states. I wish it hadn’t been needed because, like you, I’d prefer the market work it out. It just wasn’t going to happen in any reasonable time.
I answered that here. Short answer is: It’s not like the CRA is a major burden on the market and even now it helps prevent some racism.
Having lived across the border from Idaho in the no-less-special-in-the-racism-department city of Spokane, WA.
I could write a whole series of anecdotes on the subject, but I’m sure you aren’t interested.
More We don’t need mandatory treatment to control the outbreak of certain diseases, no one gets those diseases any more! And the only reason we’re debating the mandatory treatment is because another outbreak of the disease is in the news . . . every six to twelve months.
It’s very much like those, stupid, stupid law lists. Nobody does the bad thing that those laws were passed to stop anymore, but if they started to the bad thing again . . . we’d, almost certainly, pass the exact same law to stop them from doing it. So maybe we’re better off leaving those laws on the books, even if no one is currently breaking those laws, just in case folks do start breaking them in the future?
CMC
You keep posting this random accusation in various threads, but the closest I have found to evidence for this claim is that ITR champion did not happen to have posted a condemnation of an act that may have been a hypothetical you provided or it may have simply been something that he did not see.
This sort of baseless taunt is regarded as stalking and serves no purpose outside The BBQ Pit.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Sort of. I think the argument is that the CRA worked. . .that racism of the virulence you saw in the 1950s and 60s is gone, due in part to the CRA. So that, while there’s still racism and racists around, you’re not going to find wide spread support for segregation laws anymore, or for businesses that don’t serve blacks, or whatever. There may be that guy in Enid, Oklahoma, but he’s not the norm anymore, not even in Enid.
The argument would be that the CRA wasn’t an end in itself, but more of a means to an end…that of ending racial discrimination in the US, and that that’s been largely successful. To pursue your vaccine analogy, we don’t vaccinate for smallpox anymore, because smallpox is almost extinct. So, the vaccinations are now unnecessary.