But you just objected to John Mace’s hypothetical about being denied service at a privately owned lunch counter versus being invited into someone’s home. He was drawing a parallel between the two as being both “privately owned” (hence, not subject to public domain) and you voiced an issue with it.
So which is it? Its not okay to have a private “lunch counter” due to former race issues associated with that term, but its okay to have a discriminatory private “club”?
Right. And why does this happen? Because in the areas where thiswent on, the police, the sheriff, the district attorney, and the state politicians would look the other way. Hell, it’s just a bunch of boys blowing off steam, don’t you know. No harm done! Or if it was an actual lynching, a perfunctory investigation might take place with a yawning Deputy asking a bunch of questions, getting null answers, and declaring the case unsolvable.
In the meantime, a black man caught lifting a chocolate bar would have the whole weight of the law thrown at him.
That was a problem of government, not the free market. It was government law being selectively applied to act as a tool of racism.
The same thing happens with union violence. Unions gain in power because when they smash in the windows of a car trying to drive into a picketed property, the cops look the other way because it’s a ‘labor dispute’. So the intimidation continues.
I did not emphasize the role of business. I do emphasize the role of individuals and society in institutionalized racism. Government action has been the road of last resort when discrimination was fought.
Your blaming liberals for racism in America? And you want to be taken seriously? Labor disputes that locked others out were less about race than about job security.
Unions are ant-immigrant until the new immigrants become the new union members.
You confuse cause and correlations.
You draw conclusions with false assumptions of motive.
you may want to read up on things:
…and then explain to me how wage determinations on Federal Jobs locks out poor people. I’ve worked many a NON union job in my travels and was always thankful that my base wage was indexed tow hat unions were paying.
In states where union pay was low, I got paid crap. In strong union states where the same type of job paid much better. I realized early on that my pay was determined by how well unions were paid.
The difference is one is a public place. Everything not owned by the government is privately owned. A lunch counter is a public place. I have no idea why you are mentioning the ‘public domain’ unless it is that you are confused over legal terms and what they mean.
I never claimed that Rand Paul was in favor of discrimination. He defends the right of private business to discriminate on the basis of race, which he personally finds odious.
Confusing, ain’t it?
But now his campaign says he supports the laws that would prevent businesses their right to discriminate, a right he says he supports, and he now says he would not vote to over turn these very laws if given a chance to.
No, I don’t say any such thing. I do say that the government should not be complicit in the burning of that cross, which indeed it was in the Jim Crow South.
Definitions. A business can be traded publicly as opposed to being held privately, but it is a privately owned business…in the context of government ownership vs private ownership.
When using the term ‘private’ one must first stipulate what definition of ‘private’ is being used. There are other terms that may be used that may state a point more clearly, but those terms may be difficult to use as masks for what people are talking about… The arts of spin and framing of arguments rely on this type of obfuscation.
Again, a lunch counter is a public place, a place business open to the general public. It may be owned by an individual or a group. It is privately owned as long as it is not owned and operated by the government.
Now, a home is not a public place or a place of business open to the public.
That’s not a problem of government; that’s a problem of lack of government. What happened in the South was that when racists attacked blacks in various ways, the government didn’t step in to solve the problem (by, say, arresting the lynchers and cross-burners). When the problem is lack of government, you can’t say that the solution is less government.
This has fuck-all to do with why one place is deemed “private” and one place is deemed “public” under your argument. You argue that they are the same, yet not the same.
You don’t get IT? It’s your argument. You say a home is the same as a place of business. Yet you can’t defend that arguments without reinventing definitions or running away from them.
It’s pretty simple. A lunch counter is a public place. Doesn’t matter who owns it. It’s the purpose for being – to serve the public.
So if government agents use their powers to support racism, it’s a problem of lack of government? If the people vote in a Governor, and that governor uses his power to intimidate blacks while nodding at the good old boys who burn crosses into yards, the problem has nothing to do with government?
This is sounding dangerously like a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Government is by definition good. Therefore, if government does bad things, the problem is that there wasn’t enough true government.
A recent example: The people entrusted the government to regulate oil rigs. The government regulators wind up being cronies of the oil companies, and give them a pass on having to meet regulatory requirements. Disaster ensues. But hey, government’s not the problem, right? Business only is to blame. If anything, this just shows that we need even more government. Is that about right?