(02-20-2009 10:41 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(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 am so hurt to be left out of the beer line. I mean, I wouldn't be the "Race Pimp" if it wasn't for you.....

Why would I want to? Afterwards you'd demand I paid your tab and when I didn't, call me a racist.

(02-20-2009 10:45 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-20-2009 10:41 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(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 am so hurt to be left out of the beer line. I mean, I wouldn't be the "Race Pimp" if it wasn't for you.....

Why would I want to? Afterwards you'd demand I paid your tab and when I didn't, call me a racist.

I think Chris Rock said it best "The most racist people in America are old black men."

Reb- Paying the tab is all part of the race hustle. It's getting hard out here for a race pimp.

(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.

WOW !!!!

And I never knew from their post ... I guess now that I know, I will have to act as Robert says I do anyway and be a bigoted hating racist Jew (I am Irish/Christian).

Sorry CB and Nomad, if Robert says its so, then it has the be the truth ...

.

(02-20-2009 01:28 PM)Tripster Wrote:  

(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.

WOW !!!!

And I never knew from their post ... I guess now that I know, I will have to act as Robert says I do anyway and be a bigoted hating racist Jew (I am Irish/Christian).

Sorry CB and Nomad, if Robert says its so, then it has the be the truth ...

.

I already knew you were in the Klan.

(02-19-2009 04:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(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.

One of the few things we agree on.

(02-19-2009 10:56 PM)jh Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 10:46 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(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?

I doubt that one could emerge now, at least not here. I'm not sure that government intervention wasn't justified during the start of the civil rights movement. In that case I do believe that the discrimination was (probably) widepread enough, and the government complict in establishing such conditions, to qualify.

Yes...I agree. Jim Crow laws did prohibit competition. Removal of those governmental barriers was necessary.

(02-20-2009 05:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 10:56 PM)jh Wrote:  I doubt that one could emerge now, at least not here. I'm not sure that government intervention wasn't justified during the start of the civil rights movement. In that case I do believe that the discrimination was (probably) widepread enough, and the government complict in establishing such conditions, to qualify.

Yes...I agree. Jim Crow laws did prohibit competition. Removal of those governmental barriers was necessary.

Dismantling the Jim Crow laws is one thing. I'm saying that I'm not sure that laws banning segregation (and thereby limiting free asociation) weren't justified at the time.

Do you believe that there are ever any limits to what people are voluntarily allowed to do (assuming they aren't violating anyone's rights)?

(02-20-2009 12:09 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-20-2009 12:01 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 11:47 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Brings up a good question...What person in US history would you like to sit down and have a few beers with?

Ill go with someone historically interesting and known to be fun...Ben Franklin

Davy Crockett.

Not bad....Like Lewis and Clark....lots of stories of discovery.

I'll go with Thomas Jefferson or Aaron Burr.

(02-21-2009 09:40 AM)jh Wrote:  

(02-20-2009 05:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 10:56 PM)jh Wrote:  I doubt that one could emerge now, at least not here. I'm not sure that government intervention wasn't justified during the start of the civil rights movement. In that case I do believe that the discrimination was (probably) widepread enough, and the government complict in establishing such conditions, to qualify.

Yes...I agree. Jim Crow laws did prohibit competition. Removal of those governmental barriers was necessary.

Dismantling the Jim Crow laws is one thing. I'm saying that I'm not sure that laws banning segregation (and thereby limiting free asociation) weren't justified at the time.

Do you believe that there are ever any limits to what people are voluntarily allowed to do (assuming they aren't violating anyone's rights)?

I see where you are coming from. I believe and practice the principle of non aggression towards my neighbors. I don't believe in bringing the "gun in the room" unless someone is directly harming another person..ie..theft,fraud,violence. I advocate a system of ostracism instead of force against those that exhibit behavior that I deem (yes..the slope gets slippery here) distasteful or inappropriate. That being said...Its not the paradigm we currently live under and I understand the motivation of using force to solve problems in the past and today. I'd like to see it change toward a more voluntary society...but...That is likely to be pipe dream. All I can do is continue to be principled in my life as to how I treat those around me. I know that in order to have liberty...I must allow my neighbors the same liberty that I seek.

To answer the question...No, in principle...Yes, in reality.