(02-19-2009 04:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  How do we know that people are staying apart due to color? Maybe it's the culture.

Well that sounds familiar.

Of course it's culture. But TV and newspapers made big money covering the Civil Rights Movement. They keep perpetuating the racism angle to keep up sales, and b/c journalists want to feel useful.

(02-19-2009 04:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  How do we know that people are staying apart due to color? Maybe it's the culture. Personally, I don't care what color somebody is but if they act in a way that doesn't mix with my own personality, I don't hang out with them, regardless of color. I hang out with black people from work sometimes, because, like my white friends, they're nice people and we get along.

I'm allergic to black people.

I'm allergic to liberals.

(02-19-2009 12:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While I don't disagree with the general sentiment, I think it demeans your argument when you ask if he would have been elected if black. He may have gotten more blacks to vote, but as 90+% have historically voted Democrat regardless of the race of the candidate, I think that may be unfair to say that he was elected simply because he was black. I certainly didn't vote AGAINST him because of his color.

You're right. But being black had a lot to do with his nomination.

The first black Attorney General of the United States of America calling a large portion of the population "Cowards" is not a good way to start. People are already starting to talk about what a ridiculous ass he really is. Only a few weeks in, he's about to pull a "Gonzales".

(02-19-2009 12:45 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 12:42 AM)jh Wrote:  Well it's a good thing noone is talking about opening up an all black college then. As has already been noted, Grambling doesn't restrict it's admissions.

Name me a college that restricts it to white people.

I realize that no modern college excludes blacks, but smn1256's item #7 was about opening a "white" version of Grambling. I'm saying you can't have a "white" Grambling because Grambling was created to fufill a particular historical need (the fact that blacks weren't allowed to attend many colleges at the time) and there is no corresponding need at this time.

(02-19-2009 08:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 12:30 AM)jh Wrote:  All colleges, other than the historically black ones, are historically white. The reasons why historically black colleges were founded can't be ignored when making these types of comparisons. It's impossible to open a white version of Grambling because whites aren't prohibited from attending regular colleges.

Here is a thought experiment. A new private college just opened up in the free market of education. It refuses to take any governmental funding and is supported only by private donors. It also refuses to accept tuition payments from government sources..ie scholarships and grants....Should it be able to decide who it admits into the school based upon whatever criteria it chooses?

Yes, distasteful though I may find their criteria to be.

(02-19-2009 08:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment. A new private college just opened up in the free market of education. It refuses to take any governmental funding and is supported only by private donors. It also refuses to accept tuition payments from government sources..ie scholarships and grants....Should it be able to decide who it admits into the school based upon whatever criteria it chooses?

I say yes, but they'd be sued out of existence. They could decide not to admit people with criminal records and as soon as one applies and is denied the ACLU would be all over it.

(02-19-2009 08:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 12:30 AM)jh Wrote:  All colleges, other than the historically black ones, are historically white.

Once again, people mix up race and culture.

"Historically white" in this case means that universities descened from a European tradition. It is a cultural thing, not a racial thing.

No, in this context historically white means they historically only let white people in. Which is why there was a need for the historically black colleges in the first place.

I like George Carlin's take on this...

(02-19-2009 08:46 PM)jh Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 08:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 12:30 AM)jh Wrote:  All colleges, other than the historically black ones, are historically white. The reasons why historically black colleges were founded can't be ignored when making these types of comparisons. It's impossible to open a white version of Grambling because whites aren't prohibited from attending regular colleges.

Here is a thought experiment. A new private college just opened up in the free market of education. It refuses to take any governmental funding and is supported only by private donors. It also refuses to accept tuition payments from government sources..ie scholarships and grants....Should it be able to decide who it admits into the school based upon whatever criteria it chooses?

Yes, distasteful though I may find their criteria to be.

I concur(and I also think it is distasteful)....but....If we agree on this principle of private property rights....Then should not an business owner be allowed the same respect of his property in regard to who they hire,do business with and the establishment of premises rules...as long as they serve notice as to their policies?

I bring these questions up not to be argumentative...but...to explore philosophically the concept of "private property" as a principle.

I believe it is possible that man could evolve into a voluntary society based on private property rights and adherence to the principle of non aggression.
The exploration of these ideas lead to some very uncomfortable questions for me....for example...
Should the government be involved in the private property rights of a business owner even if they choose to discriminate as long as they are not using force or coercion in their activities?

Any thoughts?

(02-19-2009 06:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 12:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While I don't disagree with the general sentiment, I think it demeans your argument when you ask if he would have been elected if black. He may have gotten more blacks to vote, but as 90+% have historically voted Democrat regardless of the race of the candidate, I think that may be unfair to say that he was elected simply because he was black. I certainly didn't vote AGAINST him because of his color.

You're right. But being black had a lot to do with his nomination.

Just like it had to do with Jesse Sharpton's nomination.

(02-19-2009 09:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 08:46 PM)jh Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 08:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 12:30 AM)jh Wrote:  All colleges, other than the historically black ones, are historically white. The reasons why historically black colleges were founded can't be ignored when making these types of comparisons. It's impossible to open a white version of Grambling because whites aren't prohibited from attending regular colleges.

Here is a thought experiment. A new private college just opened up in the free market of education. It refuses to take any governmental funding and is supported only by private donors. It also refuses to accept tuition payments from government sources..ie scholarships and grants....Should it be able to decide who it admits into the school based upon whatever criteria it chooses?

Yes, distasteful though I may find their criteria to be.

I concur(and I also think it is distasteful)....but....If we agree on this principle of private property rights....Then should not an business owner be allowed the same respect of his property in regard to who they hire,do business with and the establishment of premises rules...as long as they serve notice as to their policies?

I bring these questions up not to be argumentative...but...to explore philosophically the concept of "private property" as a principle.

I believe it is possible that man could evolve into a voluntary society based on private property rights and adherence to the principle of non aggression.
The exploration of these ideas lead to some very uncomfortable questions for me....for example...
Should the government be involved in the private property rights of a business owner even if they choose to discriminate as long as they are not using force or coercion in their activities?

Any thoughts?

Fo, as you know, the free market system also allows for the customer to judge you. And to your credit the government wouldn't have to step in to take it down because the consumer makes the decision on whether you stay in business or not. If a company were to do that on their own accord they would face the punishment of being shunned by their consumer. The same goes for the school situation because there is no rightful way to seek government intervention. The school, in turn, would possibly be faced with being shunned by potential students and donations. So I guess the free market does have it's own little "regulations".

(02-19-2009 08:40 PM)jh Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 12:45 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 12:42 AM)jh Wrote:  Well it's a good thing noone is talking about opening up an all black college then. As has already been noted, Grambling doesn't restrict it's admissions.

Name me a college that restricts it to white people.

I realize that no modern college excludes blacks, but smn1256's item #7 was about opening a "white" version of Grambling. I'm saying you can't have a "white" Grambling because Grambling was created to fufill a particular historical need (the fact that blacks weren't allowed to attend many colleges at the time) and there is no corresponding need at this time.

Hell, who would want to open a white-only university? Can you imagine how bad they'd get their asses kicked on Saturday in the Fall by a regular school?

I'd say it's not only cultural, but political. Even though Nomad and CB are liberals, and black, I'd sit down with them for a beer any day of the week before I'd be in any room with someone like RobertN.

BTW, as for white-only schools and black-only schools, both of which do not exist, they're not feasible. Schools and colleges are supposed to prepare the students for the real world. It's not the real world when such a large segment of that world is absent.

(02-19-2009 10:11 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 09:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 08:46 PM)jh Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 08:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 12:30 AM)jh Wrote:  All colleges, other than the historically black ones, are historically white. The reasons why historically black colleges were founded can't be ignored when making these types of comparisons. It's impossible to open a white version of Grambling because whites aren't prohibited from attending regular colleges.

Here is a thought experiment. A new private college just opened up in the free market of education. It refuses to take any governmental funding and is supported only by private donors. It also refuses to accept tuition payments from government sources..ie scholarships and grants....Should it be able to decide who it admits into the school based upon whatever criteria it chooses?

Yes, distasteful though I may find their criteria to be.

I concur(and I also think it is distasteful)....but....If we agree on this principle of private property rights....Then should not an business owner be allowed the same respect of his property in regard to who they hire,do business with and the establishment of premises rules...as long as they serve notice as to their policies?

I bring these questions up not to be argumentative...but...to explore philosophically the concept of "private property" as a principle.

I believe it is possible that man could evolve into a voluntary society based on private property rights and adherence to the principle of non aggression.
The exploration of these ideas lead to some very uncomfortable questions for me....for example...
Should the government be involved in the private property rights of a business owner even if they choose to discriminate as long as they are not using force or coercion in their activities?

Any thoughts?

Fo, as you know, the free market system also allows for the customer to judge you. And to your credit the government wouldn't have to step in to take it down because the consumer makes the decision on whether you stay in business or not. If a company were to do that on their own accord they would face the punishment of being shunned by their consumer. The same goes for the school situation because there is no rightful way to seek government intervention. The school, in turn, would possibly be faced with being shunned by potential students and donations. So I guess the free market does have it's own little "regulations".

Bingo...Without government regulation I believe the ostracism would suffice as punishment for perceived bad behavior by consumers responding to market signals and withdrawing their patronage....without force or coercion.

(02-19-2009 09:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 08:46 PM)jh Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 08:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment. A new private college just opened up in the free market of education. It refuses to take any governmental funding and is supported only by private donors. It also refuses to accept tuition payments from government sources..ie scholarships and grants....Should it be able to decide who it admits into the school based upon whatever criteria it chooses?

Yes, distasteful though I may find their criteria to be.

I concur(and I also think it is distasteful)....but....If we agree on this principle of private property rights....Then should not an business owner be allowed the same respect of his property in regard to who they hire,do business with and the establishment of premises rules...as long as they serve notice as to their policies?

I bring these questions up not to be argumentative...but...to explore philosophically the concept of "private property" as a principle.

I believe it is possible that man could evolve into a voluntary society based on private property rights and adherence to the principle of non aggression.
The exploration of these ideas lead to some very uncomfortable questions for me....for example...
Should the government be involved in the private property rights of a business owner even if they choose to discriminate as long as they are not using force or coercion in their activities?

Any thoughts?

In general I do believe that business should have the right to discriminate (though I do not believe that they should do so). Generally there are enough alternatives that an individual business discriminating against a particular class of people does not affect their lives in any meaningful way.

The question becomes more problematic if the discrimination is so widespread that it does so. In those cases government intervention might be justified, particularly if the government has contributed to the problem in the past.

I'm not sure there's a hard & fast rule for determining when a situation crosses into the later category (I do believe it's extremely rare in the modern American society).

(02-19-2009 10:37 PM)jh Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 09:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 08:46 PM)jh Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 08:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment. A new private college just opened up in the free market of education. It refuses to take any governmental funding and is supported only by private donors. It also refuses to accept tuition payments from government sources..ie scholarships and grants....Should it be able to decide who it admits into the school based upon whatever criteria it chooses?

Yes, distasteful though I may find their criteria to be.

I concur(and I also think it is distasteful)....but....If we agree on this principle of private property rights....Then should not an business owner be allowed the same respect of his property in regard to who they hire,do business with and the establishment of premises rules...as long as they serve notice as to their policies?

I bring these questions up not to be argumentative...but...to explore philosophically the concept of "private property" as a principle.

I believe it is possible that man could evolve into a voluntary society based on private property rights and adherence to the principle of non aggression.
The exploration of these ideas lead to some very uncomfortable questions for me....for example...
Should the government be involved in the private property rights of a business owner even if they choose to discriminate as long as they are not using force or coercion in their activities?

Any thoughts?

In general I do believe that business should have the right to discriminate (though I do not believe that they should do so). Generally there are enough alternatives that an individual business discriminating against a particular class of people does not affect their lives in any meaningful way.

The question becomes more problematic if the discrimination is so widespread that it does so. In those cases government intervention might be justified, particularly if the government has contributed to the problem in the past.

I'm not sure there's a hard & fast rule for determining when a situation crosses into the later category (I do believe it's extremely rare in the modern American society).

I agree....I wonder though about how discrimination could become so widespread that other business models could be restrained from meeting demands of the discriminated?....I can't think of any(and I don't claim to be smart)....suggestion?

(02-19-2009 10:19 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I'd say it's not only cultural, but political. Even though Nomad and CB are liberals, and black, I'd sit down with them for a beer any day of the week before I'd be in any room with someone like RobertN.

I think I've said this before but I'd prefer to have a beer with Obama rather than McC. Obama's probably not a bad guy, I just disagree with his politics. But if I wanted to go whoring there's no other guy better to be with than Bill Clinton.