Rand Paul, Racism and 1965 Civil Rights Act

[David Floyd]

Oerdin, I completely agree that government intervention sorted out much of the institutional racism.

My point is that the government was wrong to do so, in that it grossly overreached it's proper power.

[giblets]

Institutional racism severely limits the freedom of minorities. If the point in government is to maximize freedom, why shouldn't the government take action against institutional racism? Why is the freedom to run you business in a racist way so important that it would have warranted allowing institutional racism to continue to limit the freedom of black people?

[KrazyHorse]

Now you're getting warmer.

[David Floyd]

Institutional racism severely limits the freedom of minorities. If the point in government is to maximize freedom, why shouldn't the government take action against institutional racism? Why is the freedom to run you business in a racist way so important that it would have warranted allowing institutional racism to continue to limit the freedom of black people?

Institutional racism doesn't violate anyone's rights, at least not as I view the concept of rights, nor how I read the US Constitution. I don't have a right to a job, nor do I have a right to force someone else to not discriminate against me. However, to your point, I agree that much of the job of government is maximizing freedom, which is why I fully agree that the government should be non-discriminatory, and agree that the government shouldn't conduct business (or at least, has the right not to) with discriminatory companies.

But it's antithetical to maximizing freedom, if in the name of freedom you limit freedom (ie, hiring practices).

[Dinner]

Oerdin, if there's a law against the market operating then it's not a free market.

I'm differentiating between laws which say blacks can't use a "white" drinking fountain or use a black bathroom or say blacks have to sit in the back of the bus vs rules set up by private companies but which are not rules set up by the government such as only whites may enter a restaurant, or a bar, or a hotel, etc... Nine of the ten provisions of the Civil Rights Act dealt with official racial discrimination of the state and the tenth dealt with private businesses which discriminated on the basis of state then what we are disputing is the 10th provision where private businesses racially discriminated even though they were "public accommodations"; that is to say they were restaurants, hotels, bars, or other public businesses which disallowed blacks from entering.

The reason for this differentiation is that libertarians have said the government shouldn't create official racist laws such as whites only public rest rooms or whites only drinking fountains but that the government can't/shouldn't interfere with private businesses who want to discriminate (such as restaurants which say no ******s allowed or hotels which say no ******s allow). That's where the public debate currently is.

[KrazyHorse]

I think you're confusing what the market arguments provided so far have dealt with. Namely they covered racism in the labor market, not against consumers.

The market mechanism is much weaker there, when the minority is small and poor.

[KrazyHorse]

I think you're confusing what the market arguments provided so far have dealt with. Namely they covered racism in the labor market, not against consumers.

The market mechanism is much weaker there, when the minority is small and poor.

[Dinner]

The claim made is that if a restaurant says "whites only" that the free market would work to put it out of business and my point is we had hundreds of years of "whites only" private businesses and the free market didn't put them out of business. Obviously, the claim is bull****. The free market doesn't stop or, often, even hinder racist free enterprises and often those companies become the dominate businesses in their area because the majority of citizens are themselves racist. The "free market" excuse is just a lie.

[Dinner]

I think you're confusing what the market arguments provided so far have dealt with. Namely they covered racism in the labor market, not against consumers.

The market mechanism is much weaker there, when the minority is small and poor.

I'm addressing, specifically, the claims made by Rand Paul that private companies should never be forced to not be racist by the government and claims made, in this very thread, that the market will punish companies who discriminate and reward those which do not. The later is a false claim proven false by centuries of experience.

Obviously, when the minority is small and poor they have less power but never the less this is the historical experience in US history. There is no equivocating on that.

[Dinner]

the free market weeds out racism... If I think a business is racist I'll boycott them. So will plenty of other people... Thats how the free market enforces moral codes, the consumers vote with their dollars. And monopoly aint no protection, the bigger the business the more sensitive they are to potential PR disasters. But like Gribbler said, that violin is tiny

This is an example of someone arguing that the market will weed out racism and reward companies which are not racist. The problem is this is not the historical experience and instead racist "whites only" companies often became the best restaurants, the best hotels, the best... What ever. The market doesn't punish racism in the American experience.

[giblets]

I'm addressing, specifically, the claims made by Rand Paul that private companies should never be forced to not be racist by the government and claims made, in this very thread, that the market will punish companies who discriminate and reward those which do not. The later is a false claim proven false by centuries of experience.

I think history only shows that if market forces do discourage racism, the pressures are not strong enough to guarantee a non-racist equilibrium. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the market will punish racism to some extent.

[KrazyHorse]

The claim made is that if a restaurant says "whites only" that the free market would work to put it out of business and my point is we had hundreds of years of "whites only" private businesses and the free market didn't put them out of business. Obviously, the claim is bull****. The free market doesn't stop or, often, even hinder racist free enterprises and often those companies become the dominate businesses in their area because the majority of citizens are themselves racist. The "free market" excuse is just a lie.

This entire rant is based on a false premise.

[Dinner]

I think history only shows that if market forces do discourage racism, the pressures are not strong enough to guarantee a non-racist equilibrium. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the market will punish racism to some extent.

It's nice to claim that there is some small market force punishing racism but if over and over and over again we find that racist actors are not punished but continually rewarded, and the reward mechanism certainly seems stronger then the punishment mechanism, as we have seen in actual US history, at some point we have to say the market is not an effective deterrent to institutional racism. That's why I continually dispute people who claim the market, in and of itself, will solve this problem. It will not, we have hundreds of years of proof that if will not, and the only thing which did work is direct government action.

[KrazyHorse]

I think history only shows that if market forces do discourage racism, the pressures are not strong enough to guarantee a non-racist equilibrium. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the market will punish racism to some extent.

The real point here is that it's less costly to refuse service to minorities than it is to refuse to use their labor. It's easier to build a company based solely on minority labor than on minority custom. The benefits to breaking customary racism are thus much greater in one case than the other.

[Dinner]

This entire rant is based on a false premise.

Explain because I see a very real series of cause and effect.