Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many Black businesses were thriving by serving Blacks, especially in the Southland and major northern cities. The Civil Rights Act put many of these entrepreneurs out of business. It was wrong for some Southern states to enforce segregation by law. It is also wrong, probably more harmful since it is much more difficult for people to leave our country than to move from state to state, for the fedgov to enforce integration by law. People should have a right to eat at restaurants which serve only their own race or ethnic group if they wish to do so. If there was great demand for biracial or multiracial restaurants, entrepreneurs would arise to serve those demands. You ask of a certain hypothetical if that is what libertarians want. If some Americans want to live with their own racial or other distinctive group, that is their right. If others want to mingle with other groups, that is also their right. Government forceful interference is wrong and generally creates much more animosity than if people of all races, ethnic and religious groups were left to decide as individuals how they wish to live. Freedom of association, which necessarily implies nonassociation is a bulwark of liberty. If the American people want a segregated society, as long as government does not discriminate against any citizen, they should have it. People who wish to integrate should also have that right. Otherwise, government, especially the fedgov, should stay out of the matter.
For life and liberty, David Macko ----- Original Message ----- From: "zmaitreya11" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:16 PM Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Libertarian Party and civil rights > --- In [email protected], "hrearden_hr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> >> Someone could open a restaurant that serves Blacks only and reap > all >> the business from Black people in the community. > > What if no restaurant did open to serve the Black community? What > about bi-racial and multi-racial people? Do we need to have > segregated places of business by race? If the government gets > involved as it has done with civil rights, then you have a more > integrated society with less racism, like the way the country is > going right now. If there were no government intervention as > Libertarianism proposes, then we might have segregation, a sort of > self-imposed apartheid. Is that what Libertarians want? > > The opposite of the >> senario you mention could happen as well. A business might loose > non- >> Black customers by discriminating against Blacks in protest of > such >> a policy. I heard of a real life situation in which a gas station >> owner in a small town in the south hired a Black man to pump gas > for >> customers( this was back when there was no such thing a self- > serve) >> and many white customers told the owner that they would buy their >> gas elsewhere if he did not fire the Black man. The owner lost >> customer and was about to reluctantly fire the man when a White >> woman asked him if he would continue to let the man work for him > if >> business picked up. She told him that she could get him some >> customers. The owner agreed to hold off on firing the man. The > woman >> told her friends and people she knew who were not racist that they >> should buy gas from the owner's station. She brought in enough >> business to make up for the customers the station owner lost. >> > > As I mentioned in my post, however, what if the business is in a > small town that is racist. What if the business owner stood to make > more profit from his regular customers by discriminating? > >> Also, if a person has a strong objection to eating at a place that >> serves Black people the law will not make a difference. They would >> stop eating there if the place served Blacks regardless of whether >> the law required that Blacks be served or not. I live in a state >> that does not allow smoking in restaurants. Eventhough it is the > law >> many smokers stopped eating out because of the law. They don't >> sympathize by continuing to eat out as much because they > understand >> that it is the law. That makes no difference to them. >> > > Yes it would make a difference and it has. If a person does not > want to eat a restaurant that serves black people, that person would > need to stay home. Because every restaurant is required to serve > all races regardless of how they may feel or think. There are no > completely white restaurants anymore, thanks to civil rights and > government intervention. > > Anyone have any ideas or thoughts that can show me that > Libertarianism does not lead to racist, segregated societies? And > don't say that the market can fix it without reading what I have > written above and without some new points. > > I am not bashing Libertarianism as I agree with most of the Party's > points, but I can not become a member without resolving the civil > rights issue. > > Thanks. > > David ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
