3 ms·

I'm saying the libertarian theory about economic disadvantage from discrimination is falsified by the well-publicized history of MLK's campaigns of civil disobe

I'm saying the libertarian theory about economic disadvantage from discrimination is falsified by the well-publicized history of MLK's campaigns of civil disobedience in the south.

aww_dang 5y ago
I hear what you are saying, but I don't agree. Assuming I've never heard of MLK is a stretch. Was there no economic disadvantage to not serving customers? Did the state end racism by passing a law? If those repugnant practices were openly resumed today, would customers patronize those businesses? If not, could it be that society has evolved for the better, independent of legislation? Would you feel comfortable dining in a place where you were unwelcome, or would you prefer that these undercover racists openly advertised as such?
- DarylZero 5y ago
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    For my part I won't characterize your statements. However, I hope you never have a racist dining experience. It isn't pleasant, but it is still out there. I'd rather avoid such establishments and let racists pay a premium for those experiences. >...drive away white customers Yet today more customers would be outraged by segregation. Society evolved for the better. Even in the 60s in places where it was arguably the social norm, many whites found segregation objectionable. Would you be willing to make that sweeping generalization along lines of race? As for the KKK, this is an entirely different incentive of violence, which was frequently involved with local law enforcement. Segregation was mandated and enforced by the state under Jim Crow laws. >...economic disadvantage from discrimination is falsified... >They segregated because of social pressure By backpedaling to this position, you abandon your initial assertion. Notably, you didn't answer the question of whether not serving black customers had a negative economic impact. Race baiting libertarians with generalizations or Ron Paul specifically requires a narrow reading of history. It ignores the broader context to score a partisan point. Deliberately exploiting racial divisions to make the authoritarian case is beyond polite description. https://www.aei.org/articles/exploitation-in-the-jim-crow-south-the-market-or-the-law/ https://www.aei.org/articles/exploitation-in-the-jim-crow-so... >Most Americans believe that the economic oppression of blacks in the Jim Crow South was the natural result of white racism. According to this view, southern whites were so economically dominant that—given their views on race—the regime of segregation and job discrimination that prevailed in the South was the inevitable result. Indeed, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be said to reflect this idea in its prohibition against discrimination by private citizens. But many scholars of the Jim Crow era, impressed by mounting evidence that state and local governments played a crucial role in shoring up the edifice of discrimination, now question this view.
    - DarylZero 5y ago

I'm saying the libertarian theory about economic disadvantage from discrimination is falsified by the well-publicized history of MLK's campaigns of civil disobedience in the south.

aww_dang 5y ago

I hear what you are saying, but I don't agree. Assuming I've never heard of MLK is a stretch. Was there no economic disadvantage to not serving customers? Did the state end racism by passing a law? If those repugnant practices were openly resumed today, would customers patronize those businesses? If not, could it be that society has evolved for the better, independent of legislation? Would you feel comfortable dining in a place where you were unwelcome, or would you prefer that these undercover racists openly advertised as such?

DarylZero 5y ago
- aww_dang 5y ago
  For my part I won't characterize your statements. However, I hope you never have a racist dining experience. It isn't pleasant, but it is still out there. I'd rather avoid such establishments and let racists pay a premium for those experiences. >...drive away white customers Yet today more customers would be outraged by segregation. Society evolved for the better. Even in the 60s in places where it was arguably the social norm, many whites found segregation objectionable. Would you be willing to make that sweeping generalization along lines of race? As for the KKK, this is an entirely different incentive of violence, which was frequently involved with local law enforcement. Segregation was mandated and enforced by the state under Jim Crow laws. >...economic disadvantage from discrimination is falsified... >They segregated because of social pressure By backpedaling to this position, you abandon your initial assertion. Notably, you didn't answer the question of whether not serving black customers had a negative economic impact. Race baiting libertarians with generalizations or Ron Paul specifically requires a narrow reading of history. It ignores the broader context to score a partisan point. Deliberately exploiting racial divisions to make the authoritarian case is beyond polite description. https://www.aei.org/articles/exploitation-in-the-jim-crow-south-the-market-or-the-law/ https://www.aei.org/articles/exploitation-in-the-jim-crow-so... >Most Americans believe that the economic oppression of blacks in the Jim Crow South was the natural result of white racism. According to this view, southern whites were so economically dominant that—given their views on race—the regime of segregation and job discrimination that prevailed in the South was the inevitable result. Indeed, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be said to reflect this idea in its prohibition against discrimination by private citizens. But many scholars of the Jim Crow era, impressed by mounting evidence that state and local governments played a crucial role in shoring up the edifice of discrimination, now question this view.
  - DarylZero 5y ago