Over 72% of the people who voted in a Fox News online poll think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate however they wish. To say this is appalling is an understatement.
Over 72% of the people who voted in a Fox News online poll think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate however they wish. To say this is appalling is an understatement.
It’s called limited government and freedom David.
I bet the vast majority of that 72% thinks that discrimination is wrong, and that most would boycott businesses that discriminated. Believing that businesses should be able to discriminate is different from believing that businesses should discriminate.
By the way, there is at least one Democrat in the Senate who probably agrees with them………
gahrie – 2 problems with your comments …
1) David K has yet to discover the zero of political philosophical spectra – so your bold subtlety probably literally doesn’t mean anything to him …
2) You just *had* to flip him the Byrd, didn’t you ? (shaking head)
So what you are saying gahrie is that you are a racist? Good to know. Alasdair too? Got it, thanks for clarifying guys.
The racial segregation of the post war south that was defended by people on among other things libertarian grounds was despicable then and it’s despicable now. To defend the uneccesary suffering of an entire class of people because of some theory that eventually the market will work things out is proof positive that you are blinded by ideology and care more about being right than any real world consequences of those beliefs.
In your world slavery would have gone on for decades and discrimination would still be openly acceptable in many parts of the country. But hey it’s not YOUR fault, it’s the market right?
David K – in *my* world, we outlawed slavery while *your* world kept practicing it …
In *my* world, we try not to accuse other folk of things without appropriate proof from their behaviour …
In *my* world, we can understand the difference between believing in Freedom of Speech as being for everyone as opposed to Freedom of Speech only applying to Speech of which we approve … you might want to try it, some time, David K … similarly, the freedom to choose with whom we do business, whether as client or business shoudl be for everyone, not merely for those of whom we approve …
The survey offered a multiple choice which included “No, the federal government shouldn’t decide whether businesses can select their own customers”
I do not believe that *any* government should be able to choose whom a business may have as a customer …
I believe that if a business chooses to cut itself off from a segment of the market, that business (and the owners of that business) should be able to do so without governmental interference … in far-too-recent history, governments chose which customers could go to which businesses – in Soviet Russia (where there were sotres for party members and stores for the common citizen), in Nazi Germany (where Jews were not allowed to have customers), in the US (where businesses were racially segregated enforced by governmental force) …
If *you* choose to condone such things, then, to the extent within my authority/control, *you* will not get *my* business …
If a choice had been offered in the survey which said “If I am a customer, I should be able to choose which businesses I wish to patronise; and if I own my own business, I should be able to choose which customers my business will serve”, I suspect that even more than 72% would have gone for that choice …
Then again, I’m not a davidkist …
What does discriminate mean in this case? I mean, I personally subscribe to the theory that _private business_ means that my business is my property. Ergo, I get to decide who comes into my front door and receives service. Sorry, but if I don’t want to serve a certain element, be they white, brown, or purple, that’s my business.
Maybe said element (I’m looking at you, gangsta rappers) can’t control their entourage, cousins, etc. then next thing you know something that could be settled with simple words escalates to gunfire because Cousin Tony who has never worked a day in his life doesn’t want to “someone’s b*tch.” To use an example close to your home Brendan, perhaps the Broncos would still have a starting DB if the club had been a little more stringent on, “Sorry, you look ignorant, you’re not even getting up in here…”.
Discrimination has been turned into a dirty word in our society. Sorry, but the reason we humans can “discriminate” and “discern differences” is sometimes it comes in handy to be able to tell who you might not want to associate with from a distance.
To say that poll is appalling is to not know the difference between Jim Crow and the Soup Nazi.
The poll is appalling because it shows that peole don’t understand the tyranny that can be created without proper enforcement of laws. Laws CAN protect us from tyranny. Most laws are based on controlling a level of personal freedom deemed to infringe on the freedom of others, whether that be murder, rape, or racial discrimination. To allow discrimination by private individuals is to disallow a significant portion of our population to live their lives in a way that allows even the basic freedom to buy goods at a decent price or to have a meal at the lunch counter. It is tyranny to not to allow an entire segment of our population to conduct there lives in the same way as the rest of the population.
I’m for personal freedom so long as it doesn’t directly infringe on the rights of others. For example, most of the time there is a legitimate basis for having a own a firearm. Even though it can be used to infringe on the rights of others (eg. robbery or murder), there are legitimate uses (self-defense and sport). That’s why I believe people should be able to own firearms.
There is NO legitimate basis for businesses to discriminate based on race. It is always used to infringe on the rights of others. On the other hand, private clubs wouldn’t really infringe because they are meant for the promotion of the ideas of their members. Thus, they CAN discriminate based on race. (aside: I doubt any black person would want to promote the ideas of the KKK, unless we live in a Dave Chappelle skit.)
Joe Mama: There is a clear difference between Jim Crow (government-sponsored discrimination based on race), private discrimination based on race, and the soup Nazi (discrimination based on personal preference or based on no reason at all). I’m fine with the Soup Nazi, but not the other two. There is a reason why the soup Nazi is legal, but private race-based discrimination isn’t. People who voted in the poll either don’t know the difference or don’t care about it. I believe that the poll is appalling because it shows how close we are to losing a law that has had a tremendously positive effect on the country.
James: It’s fine if you don’t want to serve a certain element. You can discriminate all you want so long as it’s not based on sex, race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin. If you don’t want people who don’t dress well, you don’t have to serve them. If you don’t want to serve felons, you don’t have to serve them. But if the underlying reason is racial, then your reason is illegitimate. If you want to discriminate against ignorant-looking people, it’s fine, so long as your test isn’t a proxy for race.
The poll is appalling because it shows that peole don’t understand the tyranny that can be created without proper enforcement of laws. Laws CAN protect us from tyranny.
You have a serious misunderstanding of tyranny. Laws cannot protect us from tyranny, laws are tyranny.
gahrie: According to Webster’s, tyranny is oppressive power. All people have some form of power, be it physical, political, or economic. To use that power to oppress others is tyrannical. Thus, a person who has power because he controls access to goods is tyrannical when he uses that power to oppress people, to keep them in their place. The law prevents that oppression.
btw: I checked Webster’s to see if I really did misunderstand tyranny. I do not.
I’m not saying laws can’t be tyrannical either. I’m saying in this case the law prevents tyranny. In fact, government tyranny is perhaps the worst form because of the tremendous power it exerts. However, individuals and businesses can by tyrannous, as well. Laws can be just.
“Laws cannot protect us from tyranny, laws are tyranny.”
That’s catchy. And completely meaningless.
Michael,
To reiterate James’ point, the people who voted in the poll were only asked whether federal intervention in private business is okay if it’s to prevent “discrimination.” They weren’t asked about discrimination based on race, discrimination based on personal preference, or discrimination based on no reason at all … they were just asked about “discrimination” in general. Thus, the people who either don’t know the difference or don’t care about it are most likely the pollsters, not the responders. Moreover, the 72% response was “No, the federal government shouldn’t decide whether businesses can select their own customers.” While that view may allow for private race-based discrimination (the theoretical tolerance of which in the name of absolute libertarianism is the real problem with Rand Paul’s questioning of the CRA), it’s hardly an endorsement of it.
So, gahrie is an anarchist? Wow, didn’t see THAT coming!
They were asked in the alternative: “Maybe, if a company is discriminating based on sex, color or ethnicity, it should be stopped: 12.8%”
Should it be: “Maybe, BUT ONLY if a company is discriminating based on sex, color or ethnicity, it should be stopped.” Doesn’t seem to me that it would change the outcome significantly. I still think the results are disturbing.
The people aren’t discriminating among the choices. 😉 They are showing a blind devotion to pure libertarian values (or worse yet anarchism) without thinking through the policy-by-policy outcomes. Blind devotion in politics is a bad thing.
So, gahrie is an anarchist? Wow, didn’t see THAT coming!
Nope. Anarchy is just another term for the State of Nature. And in the State of Nature the strong preys upon the weak. I fully recognize that government is necessary for civilization.
However….
I also recognize that government and laws are tyranny. Thus a limited government, with limited powers is the best solution. The larger the government, the more laws, the bigger intrusion into a person’s everyday life, the more tyranny exists.
Our Founders attempted to create a limited government, with limited enumerated powers so as to preserve the greatest amount of freedom and produce the least amount of tyranny.
They would be aghast at our current form of government, which is now even attempting to grant itself the right to force the people to purchase a product from a private business. Surely that is much more tyrannical than the proposition that a person has the right to choose who he does business with?
How did this turn into a debate on health care? Whether or not that is a just law or not does not change the fact that the CRA is a just law. I’ll still answer your question.
gahrie: To answer your question, no. Requiring purchase of a product is not more tyrannical than individual race-based discrimination (assuming that is what you are arguing).
Tyranny is oppressive power.
Oppression is a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
Having the government require purchase of health care is only arguably excessive. There is rational argument on both sides.
Disallowing a person from sitting at a lunch counter because of his or her race is flatly cruel and unjust.
Preventing race-based discrimination is not unjust, not cruel, and not excessive. Thus, it is not oppressive. If it is not oppressive, it is not tyrannical.
Thus, it is clear that individual race-based discrimination is tyrannical. It is arguable that health care reform is tyrannical (though I do not agree that it is).
Note: this applies to gender, religion, etc. I’m just using race because it’s easier to write just one of these categories rather than all.
I never thought I’d say this, but the level of ignorance in this room is astounding.
“Sorry, but if I don’t want to serve a certain element, be they white, brown, or purple, that’s my business.”
More like black or brown, and that’s why it’s illegal to discriminate.
“Discrimination has been turned into a dirty word in our society. Sorry, but the reason we humans can “discriminate” and “discern differences” is sometimes it comes in handy to be able to tell who you might not want to associate with from a distance.”
There’s no law that forces business to deal with EVERY person on earth no matter what. If you’ve ever paid attention at many businesses there is a sign that says “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” on the wall. If someone’s behavior warrants refusal to be served, it’s not against the law. But you think you can determine someone’s predisposition by their outward appearance most notably their skin color, and that’s against the law.
The comments from Gahrie remind me of the opinions of the sheltered white kids I went to prep school with. I had the same opinions as well until I actually experienced life on my own. I know Gahrie isn’t in 9th grade, so it’s amazing that someone can advocate for racists rights. I’m curious to know what line is in the government interfering in corporations racism. Would it be okay if the business had a “colored” section for non-whites, or colored bathrooms and white bathrooms? Afterall it is the businesses prerogative to not be interfered with by the government.
I’m curious to know what line is in the government interfering in corporations racism.
I don’t think the government should have the right to interfere in any way with a corporation’s right to choose who they do business with.
I do believe individuals have the right to make choices about which corporations they do business with in an attempt to persuade those corporations to act “properly”.
Since I apparently have to make this clear: I myself would boycott a business that discriminated against minorities. However, I still believe that the business has the right to do so.
The comments from Gahrie remind me of the opinions of the sheltered white kids I went to prep school with
Just for your information, I am an Air Force brat.About half of the people I went to school with on military bases were mixed race, be it Black/White, White/Asian, Black/Asian or other mixture. As a group we all were the subject of bigotry from the local kids when we went to civilian schools.
What I want to know is why do you think government shouldn’t have that power?
I am a firm believer that the law is not tyrannical, and in fact prevents tyranny. It seems to me that you just have a gut anti-government reaction without a reason behind it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
#20– So the government shouldn’t have the right to prevent corporations from selling and buying goods from Cuba and Iran or terrorists, of course?
America has already been through what you’re proposing, Gahrie. I believe it was the Civil Rights movement that interfered with that way of doing business, more than just the government acting arbitrarily. Although, arguably, it may have been a minority of the people that changed the way the country works, but it wasn’t changed by a tyranical or oppressive government.
I don’t know any military families abroad that send their children off the base for school, but if your parents did then you probably wouldn’t have the opinions that you have expressed today.
gahrie – I suspect that you and I actively practice colour-blindness, so we expect that others do, too …
The folk who protest the most about the “injustice” are usually the ones most sensitive to it in others because they recognise folk who think like themselves …
I’ll start to believe that most of the commenters who express ‘horror’ at the poll in these comments are actually sincere when they start condemning racial quotas and the NAACP – the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People …
Just as I will start to believe that those who cry “sexist” are sincere when restrooms are for all genders, not just single-gender … oh, is that an inconvenient example ?
Michael Nguyen #16 – most supermarkets discriminate against those who practice kosher, or who require halal food … women-only gyms discriminate against men … most of those expressing horror at the poll results discriminate against Republicans … why are those examples of discrimination legal and legitimate, but a business choosing whom to serve isn’t ?
Michael Nguyen #8 – a Tyrant is someone elected/appointed during a time of emergency to make decisions – it originated in Ancient Greece … the Ancient Roman equivalent is a Dictator … modern watering-down of those terms means that pretty much any person doing something unpopular to a sub-group is more and more likely to be accused of being a tyrant (or dictator) … Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot – all tyrants/dictators who slaughtered millions … Dubya, not so much … similarly, Sister Mary Aloysius in your 2nd Grade, not so much, though only because she probably hasn’t slaughtered millions …
If you run a hardware store, and someone comes in to buy a saw and starts the conversation by saying “Allahu akbar, kaffir – sell me that saw !”, are you discriminating in a bad way to choose not to sell him any saws ? Do you have to wait until he is measuring it against your neck before you can make that decision ?
I don’t know any military families abroad that send their children off the base for school, but if your parents did then you probably wouldn’t have the opinions that you have expressed today.
When we were based overseas we lived “on the economy” (off base) most of the time. In England, the local boys were quite hostile to us, possibly because the local girls were so friendly with us. I spent years living in a village of less than 1,000 people. Yes we were bused to base schools. (often an hour long trip each way everyday)
When we lived in the U.S., we usually attended school off base, where we experienced harassment and bigotry from the locals.
The opinons I have today are not based on my personal experiences while growing up, but on my education.
Alasdair:
I’ll address each of your points separately.
1. Supermarkets are not discriminating against people who require kosher or halal. They sell what they have to everyone. It’s one thing to deny someone to contract because of religion. It’s another to not have what someone is looking for. If I’m not mistaken, supermarkets will sell kosher food to everyone if they have it, and will sell non-kosher items to Jews.
Women-only gyms is another matter. I’m not sure whether I agree with it or not. While it is certainly illegitimate to discriminate out of animus for gender, there are sometimes legitimate reasons to discriminate (eg. it makes sense for an OB/GYN to not serve men). I’m not sure about the gyms because I have not thought about it carefully. I’ll not make a statement about it until I have.
2. When I refer to tyranny, I explicitly refer to tyranny in the dictionary sense, not the Ancient Greek sense. I’m not exactly sure why you bring it up. You’ll also notice that I do not refer to tyrant, just tyranny.
3. Seeing as how kaffir is an offensive term, then I believe that there would be a legitimate non-discriminatory (discriminatory in the illegitimate sense) reason not to serve this person, as he or she is offensive.
When your argument involves the lack of action to prevent gender based bathroom segregation, even you must know how wrong your position is, right?
Racist supermarkets not supplying Hebrew National? Yeah I guess you just don’t get it, and you probably never will.
My advice is to find any group of black people anywhere, and tell them that although you would not frequent a restaurant that had “colored people bathrooms” and “Colored people sections” or just flat out refused service to people based on skin color, you think restaurants have the right to do that, and find out what they think about you. Maybe you could educate them… or vice versa.
“I do not believe that *any* government should be able to choose whom a business may have as a customer … ”
Which means that you support the right of buisnesses to discriminate on racial grounds. Thats not a free speech issue, no one is denying an individual their right to believe or even say what they want. They are, however, asserting that buisnesses don’t have free speech rights, and for damn good reason, because unlike your theoretical “the market solves everything world”, the real world we live in has shown ample evidence that it doesn’t. That buisnesses will discriminate in many areas given the chance. Do you not comprehend that allowing buisnesses to continue their practices in the 60’s would have meant that colored people at the time would have had little to no alternative options in many places? “Well then someone could have opened a buisness to serve them, the market provided the opportunity!” Sure, in theory. In practice the societal preasures against serving minorities would have harmed such a buisness, as would violent acts against non-minorities (and minorities) who tried to open such a buisness. Then there is the practical issue of not being able to purchase or rent the space since people wouldn’t sell to you if you wanted to serve “colored folk” and banks wouldn’t have given you the money to start. On top of that there was the economic disparity where the vast majority of the wealth was in the hands of the racists.
See thats the problem that gahrie and Alasdair have, ironically the same as is often accused of ivory tower intellectuals. They hold to their ideological positions regardless of the real world consequences and facts that surround them. They believe its right because it just has to be, those darn liberals can’t be right damnit!
In theory communism works. The same is true of capitalism. Pure adherents of both systems fail to acknowledge that the required conditions for both to function smoothly do not exist. Pure capitalism doesn’t work because not everyone starts on the same playing field. If i have 99% of the wealth and resources, no matter how hard you work or how great your idea is, you aren’t going to be able to do jack. Free market economics failed to create a system in the south that even approached equality. Libertarian ideals failed to solve the problems of Jim Crow. Defense of those pure ideological positions in the face of the reality of what happened (and in some cases continues to happen today) is sheer idiocy.
They are, however, asserting that buisnesses don’t have free speech rights,
You are arguing the wrong right. This deals with the right of property, not speech.
Do you not comprehend that allowing buisnesses to continue their practices in the 60’s would have meant that colored people at the time would have had little to no alternative options in many places?
I am arguing that this would have been solved the same way the civil rights movement began, by people assembling and expressing themselves through protest and boycott. The basic point you are missing is that it is not the role of government to control the property of a business owner, it is the role of the people to support the business or allow it to fail. I would be marching right along side you in a protest to close a racist business. I just don’t think we should allow the government to do it.
In practice the societal preasures against serving minorities would have harmed such a buisness, as would violent acts against non-minorities (and minorities) who tried to open such a buisness.
Have you talked to any Korean store owners in an American inner city lately?
And the acts of violence would be a crime, in which case government does have a role to regulate people’s behavior.
On top of that there was the economic disparity where the vast majority of the wealth was in the hands of the …..
Now we come to the basic leftist argument for increasing the size and power of the government, and the amount of control it has on our lives.
They hold to their ideological positions regardless of the real world consequences and facts that surround them.
We think exactly the same thing of you my friend.
Free market economics failed to create a system in the south that even approached equality.
There was no free market in the South. In the South the economic system was distorted by government intervention lead by racist Democrats, designed to preserve their privileges.
Libertarian ideals failed to solve the problems of Jim Crow.
There was no functional Libertarian movement when Jim Crow existed. (many would argue there still isn’t)
Defense of those pure ideological positions in the face of the reality of what happened (and in some cases continues to happen today) is sheer idiocy.
The last election is proof positive that ideology matters.
“The last election is proof positive that ideology matters.”
I thought the last election proved that most Americans didn’t want a 90 year old man and a completely unqualified moron running the country.
But you say potatoe, and I say potato.
I thought the last election proved that most Americans didn’t want a 90 year old man and a completely unqualified moron running the country.
Perhaps.
But this caused the American people to ignore the ideology of the candidates, and so elect someone far to the left of their beliefs.