Conservative hypocrisy brought to you by The Daily Show.

[reason]

What % of black people do you think agree with this? It's absurd to think Blacks would have been better off without this legislation. Can you explain this to me?The percetage of black people who agree is irrelevent. The ancients often attributed a good harvest as the Gods responding favourably to their animal sacrifices. People are prone to interpret their experiences in a multitude of ways, often contradicting each other, but all consistent with the evidence cited.

The author I had in mind when writing those remarks was a black academic, the economist Thomas Sowell, who wrote a short and very readable book on the issue called Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality.

[pure_mercury]

So you think it's fine for racists to not serve black people. Nothing else to say to that, except you're ignorant.

No, I am not ignorant. It's not "fine" to discriminate against anyone because of the race. However, it's far worse to FORCE people to do things than it is to allow people to be ignorant. Like in this situation: you're behaving like a complete tool, but it's better for MBTIc to hear your opinion than it is to silence your voice.


What % of black people do you think agree with this? It's absurd to think Blacks would have been better off without this legislation. Can you explain this to me?

A) People don't always know what is good for them and what is not, especially when something highly emotional and painful is involved; and B) explain how that claim is absurd. I triple dog dare you.


That line was responding to someone showing off their devastating wit, calling me a douchebag and you're accusing me of ad hominem attacks? You're too funny.

It was still ad hominem and there was still a baseless assertion. Valiant attempt at a dodge, though.


Secondly, I received more than a few PMs, how they stopped posting in this forum because of the right wing babbling by the most frequent posters here. Baseless? I guess it depends on your point of view.

Ah, you've received some private messages. So you get to say that people are complaining, but you can't provide the proof, because that is a violation. What a Catch-22.

Oh, and if people don't want to post because other people disagree with their most cherished orthodoxies, then I know what we need:

http://dsr.segfault.es/stuff/fun/misc/wambulance.jpg

[pure_mercury]

If you think a racist should not be forced to serve anyone and considering most of the south in 1964 was racist. Is it simply ok for blacks to be denied services? Whether you call it free association or Jim Crow, the denial of services to blacks is denied either way.

How can you say that and then claim you are glad Jim Crow laws were repealed? Don't you think there's a contradiction?

There is no contradiction there.


Obviously the court cases mentioned didn't have too much effect in the south since Jim Crow Laws were still ACTIVE. There was STILL massive segregation up until 1964, so obviously it wasn't dismantled.

But guess what, after 1964 - there was serious MANDATORY desegregation.

What don't you get about this!?!?
Jim Crow = segregation (and your so called "free association").
Civil Rights Act of 1964 = desegregation.

Because one is the government mandating discrimination against certain groups of people, and the other is people only doing business with whom they want. Jim Crow is NOT free association. It makes free association ILLEGAL. It cannot be any simpler. I refuse to believe that you cannot comprehend this distinction.

[ptgatsby]

I'd like to hear Reaon's and Pure_Mercury's take on the social cost of customer preferences.

I presume you assume that discrimination is not market supported.

Let me start it up - if a minority group is denied service for food, what action would you take?

[reason]

meanlittlechimp,

It would not be okay for a black person to be denied a service by a white racist, but it does not follow that whites should be compelled to offer black people services. It is the prerogative of each individual to decide who they want to trade or not trade with--regardless of their reasons. In any case, turning away paying customers because of the colour of their skin is not good business practice.

Moreover, it seems to me that people in the south were not as racist, or segregationist, as is sometimes supposed. Why would so many state officials think it necessary to write and enforce laws segregating blacks and whites unless they were not segregating themselves? After all, a law which forbids a black from marrying a white restricts the freedoms of both.

There is no contradiction in the views expressed here. An involuntary servant is a slave, and so would be a white racist forced to serve a black, even be it fleeting.

[pure_mercury]

I'd like to hear Reaon's and Pure_Mercury's take on the social cost of customer preferences.

I presume you assume that discrimination is not market supported.

Let me start it up - if a minority group is denied service for food, what action would you take?

Discrimination is not market supported, unless the society is so racist that a heterogeneous population is an impossibility. That is clearly not the United States. I mean, anti-discrimination legislation would not even be possible in such a society.

[reason]

Let me start it up - if a minority group is denied service for food, what action would you take?I would start a business which sells food and does not discriminate according to skin colour. And I would become very wealthy.

[ptgatsby]

Discrimination is not market supported, unless the society is so racist that a heterogeneous population is an impossibility. That is clearly not the United States. I mean, anti-discrimination legislation would not even be possible in such a society.

1) A minority that hold power can invoke change that is not widely supported (isn't that your position on the bailout?)

2) Preference does not have to be expressed to carry a cost to the minority group - that is, people can rationally support not being racist while still exerting hidden biases (see: lower wages/grades/etc for minority groups despite equal ability)

3) All discrimination can be market supported if both sides of the market discriminate, even before economics of scale are considered.

I would start a business which sells food and does not discriminate according to skin colour. And I would become very wealthy.

Most of the population won't buy from you. The one you buy from does not support your practises. One lowers your market, the other raises your cost of doing business.

Where does your profit come from?

[pure_mercury]

1) A minority that hold power can invoke change that is not widely supported (isn't that your position on the bailout?)

A minority that has undue government influence can do this, but that would not be the case in this situation.

2) Preference does not have to be expressed to carry a cost to the minority group - that is, people can rationally support not being racist while still exerting hidden biases (see: lower wages/grades/etc for minority groups despite equal ability)

This could be true, but anti-discrimination laws are a greater imposition on society through the loss of rights. This is not a purely economic question. Also, productivity could be higher, in that the market would be something closer to a pure meritocracy. I think we can all agree that social pressure and profit potential are effective anti-discrimination mechanisms.


3) All discrimination can be market supported if both sides of the market discriminate, even before economics of scale are considered.

Both sides discriminating how? You mean both buyers and sellers? People already discriminate (or don't discriminate) in the marketplace all the time.

[reason]

Where does your profit come from?The difference between the sale price and production price. Those prices might be higher than for the majority of the population, but given the demand for food I suspect that there would still be a profit to be made. But you did not specify these extra conditions.

[meanlittlechimp]

The percetage of black people who agree is irrelevent. The ancients often attributed a good harvest as the Gods responding favourably to their animal sacrifices. People are prone to interpret their experiences in a multitude of ways, often contradicting each other, but all consistent with the evidence cited.

The author I had in mind when writing those remarks was a black academic, the economist Thomas Sowell, who wrote a short and very readable book on the issue called Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality.

It's relevant when the legislation was aimed at bettering THEIR lives. Sorry if I think their opinion matter a bit more than yours.

I also think you underestimate the difference in someone's life not being forced to drink from a different water fountain because people viewed you as disgusting and sub-human. They weren't even allowed to eat at the same tables, in many places, but you guys are questioning whether it had a positive economic impact on their lives? It's not only ignorant but it's insulting to anyone who had to live through it.

Trust me, that was the single most important piece of legislation for a black person in the US, outside of emancipation.

No, I am not ignorant. It's not "fine" to discriminate against anyone because of the race. However, it's far worse to FORCE people to do things than it is to allow people to be ignorant. Like in this situation: you're behaving like a complete tool, but it's better for MBTIc to hear your opinion than it is to silence your voice.
What's with the bulshit analogy. We have real examples that actually happened and that the legislation was made to prevent.

We're talking about very specific things- being denied services because you were black. They were marching and protesting because they had to sit in the back of the bus, we're denied restaurants and hotels when they traveled and had to drink from different water fountains because the racist whites could associate with whomever they wanted.

[pure_mercury]

It's relevant when the legislation was aimed at bettering THEIR lives. Sorry if I think their opinion matter a bit more than yours.

That is incidental as to whether it actually did or did not.

I also think you underestimate the difference in someone's life not being forced to drink from a different water fountain because people viewed you as disgusting and sub-human. They weren't even allowed to eat at the same tables, in many places, but you guys are questioning whether it had a positive economic impact on their lives?

Again, separate water fountains = direct byproduct of Jim Crow LAWS. Laws, you know, by the government? You keep trying to argue that reason and I are asserting that things discrimination is a good thing, but neither of us have. You're not getting it.


Trust me, that was the single most important piece of legislation for a black person, outside of emancipation.

1) Why should we trust you? 2) You're wrong. The 14th Amendment was way more important than the Civil Rights Act, and it (again) concerned itself with what state governments could and could not do. Ending the War on Drugs would also have FAR more positive benefits for black Americans than would any post-WWII civil rights legislation has ever had.

[meanlittlechimp]

Again, separate water fountains = direct byproduct of Jim Crow LAWS. Laws, you know, by the government? You keep trying to argue that reason and I are asserting that things discrimination is a good thing, but neither of us have. You're not getting it.


Yeah no shit. And the civil rights act - effectively repealed these former laws with a new law - across all 50 states.
I don't think you guys are arguing discrimination is a good thing.

What I think you are now arguing for are these two things:

(1) the civil rights act was actually detrimental to blacks economically

and I quote;

(2) "People have the right not to serve anyone that they don't want to serve, yes. They absolutely have that right."

I've moved pass the civil rights act and it's relation to Jim Crow. It's obvious to me and I don't care whether you get that anymore.

[pure_mercury]

Yeah no shit. And the civil rights act - effectively repealed these former laws with a new law - across all 50 states.
I don't think you guys are arguing discrimination is a good thing.

What I think you are arguing for are these two things:

(1) the civil rights act was actually detrimental to blacks economically

I don't think it can be said for certain that it was detrimental to blacks economically, but I think a very strong case can be made that it was not beneficial, based on the historical flatlining of the increase in standard of living. To be honest, I think the simultaneous Great Society programs had a lot more to do with it. Engineering a huge increase in the number of blacks on public assistance is not a good way to encourage economic development within their community.

and I quote;

(2) "People have the right not to serve anyone that they don't want to serve, yes. They absolutely have that right."

I've moved pass the civil rights act and it's relation to Jim Crow. It's obvious to me and I don't care whether you get that anymore.

People have that right. The right to associate (or not to associate) freely is a foundational right of Western civilization. If you disagree with this right, you can formulate a critique to it.