posted
In advance, screw anybody who votes for a pro-oil candidate this fall. Talk about un-American...I don't want Myrtle Beach all covered with oil. This drilling stuff is nonsense. I like to vacation at the beach. What's wrong with that? Is beach-going un-American?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama criticizing a foreign oil company for wrecking our coastline is unamerican, not BP itself (apparently they're very american)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rand Paul says Obama's threat to put his boot heel to the throat of BP is un-American, because it's anti-business (that BP is headquartered in Britain is superfluous). That's a pretty solid conservative libertarian thing to say; the business of America is business and all that.
When are you going to link Paul's Civil Rights Act comments from Rachel Maddow? I've wondered for awhile how civil libertarians (who generally tend to be Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents) square their opposition to some government intrusion into private business for social purposes (drug policy liberalization, abortion restriction opposition, etc.) but not others (like the Civil Rights Act).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, the government shares some of the blame. Regulation became lax, and because of that this atrocity happened.
BP shares most of the blame, but a small part of the blame could go to the government.
I think something positive in this whole situation though is that the other oil companies are helping BP by offering the help of their top engineers and researchers. This spill is their worst nightmare, as they know it will likely result in more regulation. It is a wake up call to the oil industry that they need to have better control over the safety of the rigs and the crew.
Also, kudos to Kevin Costner. He has been working on a machine with his brother since the late 80's called "Ocean Therapy" that sucks water in, cleans it, and spits it back out 97% cleaner. He spend $40 million developing it, and BP has been using some of the machines to help clean the water. It won't be able to take care of the problem completely, but it will help a bit. It can clean 200 gallons of water a minute, and he has donated the use of some of them to help with the spill.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Rand Paul says Obama's threat to put his boot heel to the throat of BP is un-American, because it's anti-business (that BP is headquartered in Britain is superfluous). That's a pretty solid conservative libertarian thing to say; the business of America is business and all that.
When are you going to link Paul's Civil Rights Act comments from Rachel Maddow? I've wondered for awhile how civil libertarians (who generally tend to be Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents) square their opposition to some government intrusion into private business for social purposes (drug policy liberalization, abortion restriction opposition, etc.) but not others (like the Civil Rights Act).
You're too religious to go to the beach, aren't you? You don't think all that exposed skin is pleasing to your God, do you? You're kind of like the Muslims in that way, aren't you?
I mean seriously, either you like the beach, or you like oil. You can't...like...BOTH.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I've wondered for awhile how civil libertarians (who generally tend to be Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents) square their opposition to some government intrusion into private business for social purposes (drug policy liberalization, abortion restriction opposition, etc.) but not others (like the Civil Rights Act).
It's because we're sick of religious-based social beliefs intruding into out lives. The hijab and anti-marijuana laws are pretty much one to me, I think.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rand Paul says Obama's criticism of BP's handling of the oil spill is "un-American"
May I remind you BP stands for "British Petroleum"
What an idiot! The spill is having a huge economic impact here on the Gulf. Fishermen out of work, restuarants closing their doors, etc. And now it's creeping into our wetlands killing everything with the beginning of hurricane season upon us.
I wish these politicians would get there heads out of the sand and realize this spill isn't just about pretty beaches and warm-and-fuzzy environmentalism.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shanna: Seriously, it's stupid the concept of, "You made a mess, clean it up." gets so obfuscated when politicians get involved.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When are you going to link Paul's Civil Rights Act comments from Rachel Maddow? I've wondered for awhile how civil libertarians (who generally tend to be Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents) square their opposition to some government intrusion into private business for social purposes (drug policy liberalization, abortion restriction opposition, etc.) but not others (like the Civil Rights Act).
Well, that's where ayn rand paul gets even more lol:
He's a libertarian when it comes to things like saying 'screw you' to public education and the americans with disabilities act and letting segregated lunch counters come back into play, but suddenly, MIRACULOUSLY, rand is very very into federal government intrusion once we reach the subject of IMMORAL ACTS such as abortion and gay marriage.
aderr
The sad thing is that stuff like that can prosper in america's "libertarian" "shift" because the large majority of people who self-identify as 'libertarians' these days are conservatives who were TOTALLY for federal antihomo laws and the PATRIOT act and are suddenly very anti-government and have miraculously discovered how to be afraid of overreaching federal powers now that a Democrat is president, and want a cool 'indie' label to be homophobic under. Watch as they bastardize the 'creed' over time.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Sam, rant aside, what do you see as the fundamental difference between the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act and, say, federal laws against experiments with fetal stem cells? Why is one type of governmental, morally-justified intrusion into private business okay and another not?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Civil Rights Act, for instance, actionably protects the rights of individuals who were in a socioeconomic position to warrant anti-discrimination laws. Assuming there was a federal law against experiments with fetal stem cells, it's not actionably protecting anyone's rights, it's preventing a form of research based on a nearly purely religious objection.
the difference is like a difference between a federal law banning entire towns from effectively banning blacks, and a federal law banning the burning of a flag or depicting Muhammad. It's "a law to protect people's rights" versus "a law to protect someone's fragile moral sensibilities" — I consider one to be practical in application to the extent that it warrants federal action, and I do not see the practicality in the other. So it's good that the latter case law doesn't really exist and I can harvest and drink stem-cell milkshakes if I want.
What makes it such a pressing image issue for libertarians like Rand is that they make a big show about nap and positive-versus-negative rights but they show themselves hypocritical when they turn around and desire the imposition of federal law in these moral cases.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, the government shares some of the blame. Regulation became lax, and because of that this atrocity happened.
Rand seems to be the sort of "principles first" Libertarian that doesn't think businesses should be regulated in the first place.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that rand is insane enough to think that there's no 'regulatory line' to be crossed. he's just not at all intelligent at where he wants to draw the line.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm sure the religious folks are sick of atheist-based social beliefs intruding into their lives.
I'm sure that when 'atheist-based' social beliefs 'intrude' into religious folks' private lives, they generally don't do so with the force of law, and when they do it's stridently objected to by 'religious folks'.
But for heaven's sakes, we've just got to keep homosexuals from marrying. I mean, if we're going to talk blanket generalizations such as 'atheist-based social beliefs'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even know what an atheist-based social belief would be. The best I generally hope for is neutrality. I'm not aware of any atheist organization pushing for laws that are based on or support atheism above any other ideological position.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rand Paul cancels on Meet the Press - only other two cancellations ever were Louis Farrakhan and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
I’m sure that in his own mind Rand Paul sees himself as a principled libertarian, applying the same standard of personal responsibility to everyone. In practice, however, it’s only the poor and powerless who get held to that standard; when it’s a big coal or oil company — and we already know that both Massey and BP were severely negligent — well, “sometimes accidents happen.”
Rand Paul blew up the Internet. Did you notice? Here's how it went down: first, he suggested unmistakably that he opposed the Civil Rights Act. Then he tried unsuccessfully to weasel his way out, under near-implacable questioning. This was when people got really worked up. So Paul put out a press release, the strategy of which was more or less to deny that the previous 24 hours had happened. In the meantime, those of us who hail from the Internet have lost the ability to talk about anything else.
Mainly, of course, we've been condemning and mocking Paul. But there's a group that’s lined up to defend him as well. The basic claim is that, while Paul was of course wrong to oppose civil rights legislation, it was an honest and respectable mistake. As Dave Weigel put it on Twitter (hence the weird sentence), "Rand doesn't mean harm, is suffering as old libertarian debate moves into prime time." (Weigel wrote a longer defense of Paul yesterday as well. For an excellent response, see this post from Salon editor Joan Walsh.)
Various figures who stand a few notches in toward the mainstream from Paul have made arguments similar to Weigel's. It was a mere theoretical fancy, they say, nothing should be made of it. A staffer for Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., calls the whole thing "a non-issue." Thanks, white people, for clearing up that whole civil rights thing for everybody else. Not important!
But, lest Paul be allowed to escape, those of us who do want to make something of this need to broaden our argument. It's not just that he screwed up and said something stupid because he's so committed to a purist fancy. No, it's worse than that. Libertarianism itself is what's stupid here, not just Paul. We should stop tip-toeing around this belief system like its adherents are the noble last remnants of a dying breed, still clinging to their ancient, proud ways.
posted
Rand Paul believes in the sacred sovereignty of property. A person's property should be inviolate from any government control.
So private property should not be forced to cater to the will of the government of the people even when that government and those people are morally correct. A privately owned diner, like your own private home, should be allowed to limit its visitors to those it actually seeks--even if that means that people of color can't find a place to eat.
And since BP has more of this sacred property than any fisherman, hotel, or vacation and tourism place along the Gulf of Mexico (not to mention much more property than any of the fish, birds, or dolphins being overwhelmed by the oil) BP should not be punished or threatened with the forced loss of that property.
Besides, it will take a whole lot more oil than this to get up to Kentucky.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour (from the Salon article): Libertarianism itself is what's stupid here, not just Paul.
And that's what I meant before when I asked how lefty libertarians reconcile this. To me, looking in from outside, it takes an unacceptable amount of mental gymnastics to perform the feat.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The Civil Rights Act, for instance, actionably protects the rights of individuals who were in a socioeconomic position to warrant anti-discrimination laws. Assuming there was a federal law against experiments with fetal stem cells, it's not actionably protecting anyone's rights, it's preventing a form of research based on a nearly purely religious objection.
Sam, the individual right to be served by any business that has a public nature trumps an individual right to property (for the lunch counter owner, or hotel owner, or whatever)? That seems like a patently un-libertarian sentiment to me. Perhaps it seems less un-libertarian to you than someone's right to religion (and religious expression) trumping someone's right to property, but I'm not convinced.
posted
So I didn't have time earlier, but I can see some obvious deficiencies in my hypothetical stem-cell ban (since the individual rights aren't as direct, for instance). I still think there is significant tension between civil libertarians and a lot of Democratic causes (cf Ricci v. DeStefano or the paternalistic LA fast food ban).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that's what I meant before when I asked how lefty libertarians reconcile this. To me, looking in from outside, it takes an unacceptable amount of mental gymnastics to perform the feat.
This is actually an interesting question. I consider myself a "lefty-libertarian," insofar as that's not a contradiction, so let me give it my best shot.
The principle RP is working with is, people should be permitted to do what they want with their own property.
I tend toward leaving out that last qualifier: people should be permitted to do what they want, as long as they're not harming other people.
And according to my definition of harm, you can harm someone by withholding good things from them. Especially when you withhold them in a discriminatory way (ie, offer them to whites but not blacks -- that's very harmful to the blacks).
So on my view, the CRA is there to protect minorities from the harm white business-owners could otherwise do to them (by exercising what RP would call their "property rights"). On the other hand, in a stem-cell research case, there's debatably no harm done to anyone, so there's no grounds for a ban.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think that's a pretty clear statement. I wonder how "do not harm" others should be interpreted, though. How direct does the harm have to be? To take a topical example, justifications of campaign finance reform generally depend on an appeal to a diffuse "harm" done to the democratic process. Is that enough, or does the harm need to be more individually felt?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Externalities make it so that it's impossible to run a big enough business or a government without 'harming' someone, unless we very, very carefully modify all axioms involved to determine what counts as 'harm.' 1. Government can 'harm' the pocketbooks of BP by insisting on stringent safety controls and regulation. 2. BP can 'harm' the livelihood of the millions of people who depend on the coastline for their income, because they're externalities which were relegated to bottom-line methodology. 3. Companies can 'harm' themselves and others through monopsony or price control which turns into wildly fluctuating cycles, or through an inability to manage the natural environment or sustainable development and practices which are safe for all the externalities involved. It's just that your typical libertarian is going to differ on which types of harm 'count' (in these cases, in order, 1. nearly always, 2. seldom, 3. almost never).
Related to all that, it makes me super super happy that the Rand Paul apologists are making the case that Rand is hurting because he's 'moving the libertarian debate into prime time' — yes, FFS, please please please move the libertarian debate into the public eye when BP, Transocean, et. al., has gang-raped the southern coast of the United States and is tried to cap their liability for these externalities at 75 million. Please introduce this 'debate' into primetime. I want everyone to see it.
quote:So I didn't have time earlier, but I can see some obvious deficiencies in my hypothetical stem-cell ban (since the individual rights aren't as direct, for instance). I still think there is significant tension between civil libertarians and a lot of Democratic causes (cf Ricci v. DeStefano or the paternalistic LA fast food ban).
there's going to be tension, but even a lefty-lib can take these on a per-case basis on whether or not they are effective and worthwhile civil engineering. The LA fast food ban would be a terrible idea if it were actually a 'fast food ban,' but it's not. it's a moratorium on the development of fast food joints in impoverished regions. it's civil engineering designed to prevent the long-term negative repercussions of food/nutritional deserts in urban regions. Ricci isn't even a good case because the scotus ruled against the invalidation of the test scores, I think. A better case to look at would be Kelo v. New London, which I consider a blatant overextension of property seizure capacity by state and local governments for the sake of civil engineering.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The attack on Rand Paul's principled libertarianism -- which appears to hold that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate on race -- writes itself, and it's hard to see how he makes it to the Senate if he can't give a better explanation than he gave Rachel Maddow last night:
"What I think would happen -- what I’m saying is, is that I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe in any private property should discriminate, either. And I wouldn’t attend, wouldn’t support, wouldn’t go to. But what you have to answer when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. But if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants and then you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants."
“He needs to come up with an answer today, or Kentucky will be Arizona: a battleground for ugly, racial politics. He has 24 hours," Joe Scarborough said this morning.
posted
The fact that Rand Paul stumbled his way into a Civil Rights Act argument (and then subsequently tried to contort his way out of it and/or pretend it didn't really matter) is utterly sublime to me in ways related to that point.
Seth Finkelstein wrote this in August of 1997. Like, this is over a decade old. And it's proved so, so so so so profoundly relevant now that a guy literally named Rand is out and about representing libertarianism at a hilariously perfect moment (when a corporation blatantly screwed people and environment in big way, underscoring the whole 'failure to address externalities'/tragedy of the commons style argument against libertarianism).
Bolding mine.
quote:One of the seamiest and ugliest aspects of Libertarianism is its support of turning back the civil-rights clock to pre-1964 legal situation for businesses. "I am not making this up". They're very explicit about it:
quote:Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including choices and preferences, in employment, housing, and privately owned businesses. The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of the right depends upon mutual consent.
That's "rights" according to Libertarianism. Whites-only lunch counters, "No Jews or dogs" hotels, "we don't serve your kind here", "No Irish need apply", "This is man's job", etc. All this is a "right of association" in Libertarian theology. Such a weird position is not just the purview of some position-writers in a corner, but a surprisingly common trait of Libertarians. It's one of the surest way of identifying one, if they justify such a reactionary position from abstract considerations.
It must be stressed that a) Libertarians ARE NOT racists, sexists, etc. and b) The above is not meant to comment either way on the much more controversial affirmative-action debate. Libertarians can go to town whenever they're called racist, sexist, and so on for the above (gee, how could anyone ever get that idea?), proclaiming their great personal but private commitment to equality. Of course, they never have to do anything much in this regard since events have passed them by. But they want make sure you know they fully support the ideals, even if they think that all the past decades legal effort should be repealed as immoral and unprincipled. They also love to switch the debate to affirmative action, because that's far more contentious than anti-discrimination. But the position's very plain. Drinking from the wrong water fountain would presumably be "initiation of force", allowing retaliation of force to eject the malefactor.
Some of the most amazingly idiotic things will be said by Libertarians in defense of the above ideas of "rights" and the evils of anti-discrimination law. A few of my favorites, from debates on this topic:
The "Why is a raven different from a writing desk?" question
quote:What is it about the "lunch counter" that is different from a date? ... is it violence to be overtly racist in selecting a romantic interest? If so, how should we prevent it? If not, why not. Is it because the relationship is not primarily economical, in the narrow sense?
The "Business is a personal matter" approach
quote:Most non-libertarians are not in favor of the American Nazi Party marching in Skokie, nor in favor of misguided marriages, or poor business investments, but very few think that this should be illegal.
The "no distinction between anything" sneer
quote:I guess that if a fat, ugly, smelly female entered your immediate space (slobbered on top of you) and requested sexual favors, and if by some wild chance you refused, that it would be proper to take you away to a state mental health clinic and have your discriminatory ideas expunged. Is this correct?
What sort of brain-damage does it take to argue this with a straight face? Do they really, really, think someone will say "My god, a lunch counter is JUST LIKE a romantic interest. There's no way to someone could tell them apart. If a business doesn't want to serve any blacks, that's just like not having sex with someone". But apparently, this is all part of the "right of association" in Libertarianism.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid: the house of cards
The fanatical opposition of Libertarians to anti-discrimination laws also illuminates a crucial aspects of the stupid-making effects of the philosophy. They can never admit even one instance of government intervention doing good overall for society as opposed to the effects of the market. This isn't a matter of preference, it's absolutely crucial to the function of the ideology. If they ever do that, then it's an admission that social engineering can work, the market can fail, and it's just a matter of figuring out what is the proper mixture to have the best society. This is what sets it apart from Liberalism, Conservatism, and so on. One outcome against prediction will not send those intellectual foundations crashing down, because they aren't based so heavily on absolute rules applications. Libertarianism, by contrast, if it ever concedes a market failure fixed by a government law, is in deep trouble.
So this in turn leads Libertarians into amazing flights of fancy, for example, to deny the success of civil-rights laws. They must say institutional segregation was somehow all the government's fault, or it would have gone away anyway, or something like that. Rather than racism, it's being made stupid by ideology-poisoning.
Libertarian logic is an axiomatic system that bears very little resemblance to standard deductive thought - which is in part why it's so debilitating to people. It's a little like one of those non-Euclidean geometries; internally, valid results can be derived from the postulates, but they sound extremely weird when applied to the real world.
1997. He wrote that in 1997! Dude best be the smuggest person on the planet right now. Rand Paul was dreamed up as a bumbling caricature representative of libertarianism, fully about 13 years ago.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
There is a difference between private and public. Perhaps I should try to join the Black Panthers or a woman's club.
God forbid a man try to get a membership at Shapes.
Is Shapes a sexist private organization? Rand Paul is correct. The law isn't applied evenly. Shapes should be able to deny membership to men....which they do.....which is technically illegal, yet ignored. Some laws can be ignored...like immigration.
"Equal Justice Under the Law"..is only true when a protected class is offended. Black only and women only organizations are fine. Don't dare to create a white only or male only one.
There is no White Entertainment TV or National Association of White People.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the same logic,....mainstream media is liberal media. Colloquially, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc is liberal media. Yet still, Fox and talk radio is defiled and lawmakers call for another fairness doctrine. The minority in media is conservative.
Before the civil rights act there were plenty of black only businesses. Blacks want to eat out as well. The civil rights act put many black business owners out of business and a wise white business owner would've catered to both.
Shapes would go out of business if it was forced to accept men. Women, like my wife, like to work out without men looking at them.
How can Shapes operate in this country, legally? They are sexually discriminating. Many men would love to go to a gym full of women? The law is ignored and the media does not care about discrimination when the discrimination comes from a protected class.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Defiled? FNC has how many viewers? Sure, it's all 'liberal' media...say many of the people who partake of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is Shapes a sexist private organization? Rand Paul is correct. The law isn't applied evenly. Shapes should be able to deny membership to men....which they do.....which is technically illegal, yet ignored.
posted
Would you accept a man only gym? Would you tolerate a White Entertainment TV channel? Would you accept a National Association of Aryians?
Of course not. There is no "Equal Justice Under the Law"...despite the actual law....constitution.
There is a difference between law and the application of that law. If the law was applied equally, Shapes would be shut down, the NAACP would be considered a racist organization and ICE wouldn't tell Arizona it isn't going to deport the illegal aliens it sends to them.
Law is law. We live in a land where the application of law is not equal. Women only and black only organizations are tolerated. Illegal aliens are released from jails without proof of identification. The American is profiled by having to prove his identity. Illegal aliens can make up a name and they are released without any proof. Still waiting for an illegal alien to be charged with "giving a false name to a law enforcement officer". Of course, it can't be proven their name is false.
quote:Is Shapes a sexist private organization? Rand Paul is correct. The law isn't applied evenly. Shapes should be able to deny membership to men....which they do.....which is technically illegal, yet ignored.
Show us the law that makes Shapes illegal.
(hey everybody, watch this)
Go ahead and watch. I'll ask you one simple question....is there a man only gym?
I can't site the dotted decimal code of your law. The difference is this.... If there where a man only gym, a woman would sue to join and she would probably win. There have been many white only groups and minorities have sued to join,...and won. They didn't really want to join, they wanted to make a point. Shape's will lose, if a man decided to sue them.
Conservatives don't tend to bring legal suits to join a group they really don't want to join. Southern blacks went to black owned restaurants that served the food they really liked. They didn't want the white man's food at the the truck stop. After the civil right's act, the blacks still went to the restaurant that served the food they liked. Was it such a privilege to go to the white business owner's restaurant?
Conservatives don't ask Ms America contestants their position on AZ's immigration law or about gay marriage. Conservatives realize that the Miss America Pageant isn't about politics. To liberals, everything is about politics. Liberals will sue to eat at a restaurant they don't want to eat at. A man isn't going to sue to join a woman's only club, but if he did,...he would win.
Rand Paul accepts the NAACP and Shapes. He believes that a private organization can exist to suit it's member's needs. Liberals admire their own sexist and racist organizations. Liberals sue the Boy Scouts to make a point. Conservatives aren't like liberals....they don't sue to join a group they don't want to join. Perhaps they should. We are learning valuable lessons about community organizing....IE Tea Party.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Before the civil rights act there were plenty of black only businesses. Blacks want to eat out as well. The civil rights act put many black business owners out of business and a wise white business owner would've catered to both.
I'll skip what you said about the media, but this bit is interesting. "Black only" is sort of a misnomer in the sense that you're using it. They weren't black only because they excluded whites, they were black only because whites didn't want to eat there, and like you said, black people wanted to eat somewhere, so black businesses filled a niche. The kinds of movements that led black communities to exhort one another to patronize only black establishments even when white establishments would allow black patrons was part of a wider protest movement, not about excluding whites.
And I wouldn't say that the Civil Rights Movement was what ruined black businesses. It's an extremely complicated history that has to do with white flight, immigration, economic slumps, the decline of urban centers, cheaper options outside of the black community coupled with squeezing black incomes, and a host of other issues. The decline of black businesses in urban centers was coupled with an overall decline of urban business as a whole. That's a trend that is only somewhat related to the movement as a whole.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt whites were excluded from the eating at black restaurants. Blacks were capitalists who would sell the good food to anyone. During the same period, whites liked to listen to jazz in black clubs.
If I lived back then, I would eat at a black restaurant and have a few beers at a black jazz club. What is good is good. I don't believe the civil rights act killed black business but it did introduce competition. If there is only one store in town you go to, white or black, there is no competition. The civil rights act inserted competition. Music and food is a different business category than groceries and goods. The white equivalent of Wal-Mart would be steep competition for the black only local store.
Still, I think the black restaurant would be successful. Even with the whites sneeking out the back door.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Southern blacks went to black owned restaurants that served the food they really liked. They didn't want the white man's food at the the truck stop. After the civil right's act, the blacks still went to the restaurant that served the food they liked. Was it such a privilege to go to the white business owner's restaurant?
This is why I get sick at the Texas School Boards conservative propaganda. If you don't teach the truth about what it was like for a black person before the civil rights movement, you get lies like this masquerading as the truth.
Black Owned restaurants catered to Black customers not because they wanted to but because someone had to. The "Food they really liked" is a racist comment. African American's do not like any type of food that is different from what a European-American would enjoy. Why were they forced to limit their choices to just what the one local black owned restaurant offered when the rest of society could enjoy Italian, Chinese, or the expensive French food.
The food served at black owned restaurants was not the same quality or price as that served at other restaurants because the best food and the best prices the wholesaler offered went to the White-Only restaurants--their buddies.
Was it a privilege to go to a "White Only" restaurant? YES! Quality, service, prestige, all were better at the fancy and formal White Only restaurants, not to mention location. What if it was the only restaurant in a 100 mile radius? What if you were a minority so poor or so small that a black owned restaurant wasn't feasible in your town so you had no choices? The diner protests of the 60's were important Black Owned restaurants were kept out of whole sections of town (not by law, but by Libertarian Approved Red Lining practices of private Real Estate agents). If you worked in those parts of town you had 0 options for food. You brought your own cold sandwiches or you waited until you got home while your white bosses walked across the street to enjoy a hot meal or cooled off in the air-conditioned comfort that you could not be allowed to enjoy.
This is the difference between pure Libertarian thought and the backward, elitist, and conservative views that have claimed it.
Pure Libertarian thought says that Property is Neutral. It is neither good nor bad, black or white, legal or illegal, but should be legally respected by all. The Civil Rights Act codified that by saying you should respect all Property regardless of who it comes from. If you don't you are denying that Property Owners basic rights.
What good is it for a black man to earn money if he is not allowed to spend it as he wishes? What of his property rights to be a member, eat at a restaurant, sit in the front of the bus?
Once you allow bias, cronyism, and nepotism to raise their ugly but natural heads into a Libertarian Utopia, it will crash and burn.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Listen, malanthrop knows, OK? Any given social situation, he has direct, relevant, comprehensive experience that trumps whatever actual facts you can bring to the table. For everything else, there's the Jamaican neighbors.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except as prohibited by the Civil Rights Act, privately owned businesses have the right to deny services to anyone, for any reason. Most don't, as it would be against their interests to turn away customers.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I thought soul food was still a thriving business in the south? Heck if I knew one near me I would go, after watching that Boondocks episode on it, it looks awesome!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pegasus: Except as prohibited by the Civil Rights Act, privately owned businesses have the right to deny services to anyone, for any reason. Most don't, as it would be against their interests to turn away customers.
There are other laws that limit the reasons service can be denied. For example, some states have laws that prevent businesses from asking nursing mothers to stop breastfeeding or leave.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
