3 ms·

I don't doubt that such laws existed, though I know very little about them. I might surmise that the "public interest" upheld by these laws was based on a rath

I don't doubt that such laws existed, though I know very little about them. I might surmise that the "public interest" upheld by these laws was based on a rather restrictive definition of "public". But I don't quite understand your point. My point was that if your goal is to end racial discrimination, free-market forces left to themselves are not sufficient. Sometimes legislation is needed to level the playing field and make non-discriminatory businesses economically viable. Does your post relate to that, and I am just missing something? Or are you heading in a different direction?

icebraining 10y ago
I think the point is that we don't know if free-market forces are sufficient, because there wasn't a point in which they acted; there was always legislation pushing to one side or the other. Many of the Jim Crow[1] laws were only overturned after the Civil Rights Act, so the market went from mandatory discrimination to prohibition of discrimination without ever having a free phase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
yummyfajitas 10y ago
My point was that if your goal is to end racial discrimination, free-market forces left to themselves are not sufficient. Your point - or at least the argument you justify it with - doesn't really make any sense. Lets consider a result of the same argument applied somewhere different: "...a significant number of people were environmentalists, and strongly favor clean air. If you opened a factory that polluted or purchased supplies from one, your customers would disappear. If your bank made loans to polluters who wanted to finance new machinery, your depositors would take their business elsewhere." Suddenly your mechanism for enforcing racism seems implausible, right? After all, if it worked, virtually every popular left wing economic regulation would be superfluous.

icebraining 10y ago

I think the point is that we don't know if free-market forces are sufficient, because there wasn't a point in which they acted; there was always legislation pushing to one side or the other. Many of the Jim Crow[1] laws were only overturned after the Civil Rights Act, so the market went from mandatory discrimination to prohibition of discrimination without ever having a free phase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

yummyfajitas 10y ago

My point was that if your goal is to end racial discrimination, free-market forces left to themselves are not sufficient. Your point - or at least the argument you justify it with - doesn't really make any sense. Lets consider a result of the same argument applied somewhere different: "...a significant number of people were environmentalists, and strongly favor clean air. If you opened a factory that polluted or purchased supplies from one, your customers would disappear. If your bank made loans to polluters who wanted to finance new machinery, your depositors would take their business elsewhere." Suddenly your mechanism for enforcing racism seems implausible, right? After all, if it worked, virtually every popular left wing economic regulation would be superfluous.