We visit Phoenix AZ where the government has ruled that middle-class communities have the right to prevent the feeding of homeless people there.
From Coyote [via AZ Republic]
Fortunately, we can assure Anonone [who worries that a Libertarian society would enshrine colored only signs] that the motive behind the people who do not want to allow homeless people to access food at churches in their neighborhoods is NOT discrimination--it's merely respect for the law and order that only the State can provide:
See, Anonone was absolutely right about governments and discrimination: the power of the State is what works to protect the downtrodden. Damn vicious, genocidal, oppressive churches think they can waltz in anywhere and start feeding poor people whenever they please.
We'll show them respect for law and order and non-discrimination.
Ah, but those damn discriminatory libertarians would have argued that since the church owned the property, it could choose to feed poor people any damn time it pleased. Obviously, that's conduct that needs to be regulated.
From Coyote [via AZ Republic]
A Phoenix ordinance banning charity dining halls in residential neighborhoods withstood a challenge by a north-central Phoenix church.
Retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice Robert Corcoran, serving as a hearing officer, ruled Monday that feeding the homeless at a place of worship can be banned by city ordinance. The decision affects all Phoenix churches with underlying residential zoning.
Over the summer, city officials maintained that CrossRoads United Methodist Church, 7901 N. Central Ave., violated Phoenix zoning code by feeding the poor and homeless on its property, a use that can only occur in commercial or industrial zones.
Fortunately, we can assure Anonone [who worries that a Libertarian society would enshrine colored only signs] that the motive behind the people who do not want to allow homeless people to access food at churches in their neighborhoods is NOT discrimination--it's merely respect for the law and order that only the State can provide:
You will be relieved to know that this has nothing to do with a wealthy people fearing that their Xanax-induced equilibrium will be upset by actually seeing a poor person in their neighborhood. We are assured as such by Paul Barnes, a “neighborhood activist” who presumably participated in the suit to stop the Church from holding pancake prayer-breakfasts:“It’s not a problem with homeless people in wealthy neighborhoods. That would be a matter of prejudice. This issue would be setting churches up to avoid zoning ordinances.”
Wow, I am so relieved. And we all know what a problem it is when churches are organized solely to evade zoning regulations. Why, just last week the First Baptist Church and Gas Station as well as the United Methodist Church and Topless Bar opened right in my neighborhood.
See, Anonone was absolutely right about governments and discrimination: the power of the State is what works to protect the downtrodden. Damn vicious, genocidal, oppressive churches think they can waltz in anywhere and start feeding poor people whenever they please.
We'll show them respect for law and order and non-discrimination.
Ah, but those damn discriminatory libertarians would have argued that since the church owned the property, it could choose to feed poor people any damn time it pleased. Obviously, that's conduct that needs to be regulated.
Comments
Anecdotal instances of injustice do not mean that society should simply repeal all civil rights legislation. When faced with endemic and ingrained discrimination rooted in prejudice and bigotry, there isn't a single country in the world that hasn't found it necessary to use legislation and enforcement to to stop it. Many are still struggling with it. The Libertarian pipe dream of letting "market forces" alone stop discriminatory practices has never worked and never will.
Meanwhile, I'll note that you have failed to address the fact that you are a member of a "religious" organization that is a major world-wide force in perpetuating, practicing, and advocating for public and private discrimination against GBLTs and women.
So you suggesting that GBLTs become Libertarians so they can join the Libertarian fight against civil rights legislation is roundly absurd.
I have found that when Libertarians are asked if they support civil rights laws, they usually don't answer the question rather than admit that they do not support civil rights laws. Furthermore, I never said that "Libertarian society would enshrine colored only signs," only that they would make them legal again.
People need to be made aware that the repeal of civil rights legislation is an official position of the Libertarian party. You can choose to disagree with it and ignore it, but that won't make it go away or keep people like me from pointing it out.
anonone
Does the name Branch Rickey mean anything to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Rickey
Jim Holliday
I was referring to countries, not baseball teams.
anonone
I must have missed the part where Steve claimed that market forces would stop discriminatory practices. And you completely ignore the fact that government still discriminates today (% of blacks prosecuted is greater than the number of whites for the same crimes, racial profiling on traffic stops, etc.) Or, to phrase it your way, "The Statist pipe dream of letting 'government regulation' alone stop discriminatory practices has never worked and never will."
At this point I should repeat that I'm an An-Cap and not really a libertarian, so my answers don't really always match up with Steve or Tyler.
I have found that when Libertarians are asked if they support civil rights laws, they usually don't answer the question rather than admit that they do not support civil rights laws.
Do you believe in private property?
No, you were refering to market forces. Your point is that only goverment can be trusted to stop discriminatory practices. You are rather naive if you think Branch Rickey's actions only had an effect on sports.
Locally, it was a private school ( Salesianum) that broke the color barrier. Other private schools quickly followed. It took the Supreme Court to make(force) it happen in Goverment Schools.
Jim
So, Bowly, because people still rob banks mean we should repeal laws against bank robbery? And because some government officials are still corrupt, does that mean we should repeal the laws against corruption? And because some children fall through the safety net means we should stop trying?
Ultimately, the only way discrimination is going to be eliminated is through education. In the meantime, laws against the practice are the best way to prevent it.
The Libertarian idea of repealing these laws and thinking that the wicked practice of discrimination is going to somehow magically stop is just one of their more whacky ideas.
Furthermore, since Libertarians view the right to discriminate as a property right and it is the governments responsibility to uphold property rights, then a Libertarian government would, by necessity, be upholding the right to discriminate by law enforcement. So, for example, laws like trespassing would be prosecuted by the government based on skin color and the prejudice of the property owner.
Is that what you want?
"Do you believe in private property?"
Yes, I believe in private property. I also believe that the government has an important role in regulating the use of that property for the general welfare of society, such as through zoning and business regulations and civil rights laws. I own a house and cars, both of which have laws and regulations governing their use.
anonone
I wrote "When faced with endemic and ingrained discrimination rooted in prejudice and bigotry, there isn't a single country in the world that hasn't found it necessary to use legislation and enforcement to to stop it."
Not to diminish Branch Rickey's actions in any way, but It took civil rights laws, not the integration of baseball teams, to stop widespread public racial discrimination in this country and others.
anonone
So, Bowly, because people still rob banks mean we should repeal laws against bank robbery? And because some government officials are still corrupt, does that mean we should repeal the laws against corruption? And because some children fall through the safety net means we should stop trying?
Oh Jesus Christ, you really aren't equating "theft" with "being an a-hole", are you? Do we really have to explain the difference between aggression and non-aggression every time someone equates "theft" with "failure to donate to charity"? I mean, being insensitive is really a crime on par with bank robbery? You really have no concept of libertarianism. I feel like I'm trying to explain partial differential equations to my cat. And I don't even have a cat. (You used "corrupt government officials" in an argument with a guy admitted he's an anarchist. It's like debating the meaning of The Last Supper with an atheist).
You are ignoring my punchline, which is "The Statist pipe dream of letting 'government regulation' alone stop discriminatory practices has never worked and never will." Because it's true. My blanket statement is just as true as yours. More true, in fact, because it's actually been tried and been proven not to work.
Ultimately, the only way discrimination is going to be eliminated is through education. In the meantime, laws against the practice are the best way to prevent it.
Question begging, much like your comment on LGBT's having fewer civil liberties under a libertarian government. This is something you accept as a statement of fact, when it is no such thing.
Do the mental exercise of a restaurant putting up a "No Coloreds Allowed" sign. I'm white and I wouldn't go. Would you? How long would that discriminatory practice take to be publicized in the age of the internet? How long before a 24 hour news service was parked outside their door? Would a boycott and a media circus be worse than a law? I'm not convinced of that, and I'm going to need a lot more than your reassurance to be convinced. In the meantime, I know that I am not using a gun to impose my sense of morality on someone who disagrees with me.
Now here's the real kicker...given that lots of people already self-segregate because of cultural differences, why would a place that doesn't even have a significant black clientele even bother to put up the sign? Does Iron Hill or Pier One really need one (if they wanted one)? And why would a place that does have a significant black clientele put one up? You really think there are significant numbers of people out there ready to kill their livelihoods just to get rid of those darned "coloreds", at the risk of the media circus and boycotts I mentioned?
The reality is that a repeal of the discrimination laws would have ZERO effect in the current white-black ratio of 99.9% of all businesses, all the way from American Eagle to Best Buy to Hot Topic to Wal-Mart to zoos. I hate to break it to you, but most bars and restaurants are already mostly white or mostly black. Changing the law would not change that dynamic.
Then no, you don't believe in private property. The property is only private as long as you agree with what is being done with it, which means that you have preemptively staked a moral claim on someone else's property. If you don't like what they do, they can go to jail and surrender their property to the state. That's the reality of your belief, and it is exactly the answer I expected you to give.
Don't feel bad, you are in good company with conservatives who don't like "illegal" immigration, and feel they can tell me which guests I can and cannot invite into my home, and whom I can and cannot hire.
Not to diminish Branch Rickey's actions in any way, but It took civil rights laws, not the integration of baseball teams, to stop widespread public racial discrimination in this country and others.
You are again dancing around reality, which is that the discrimination that the laws fixed were caused by existing laws. In other words, the civil rights objectives could have been met...by repealing existing laws.
Would a boycott and a media circus be worse than a law? I'm not convinced of that, and I'm going to need a lot more than your reassurance to be convinced.
Obviously I screwed up the phrasing there. Point being, I'm not convinced that a law would be a worse penalty than bad publicity.
I almost screwed up the phrasing again, by not putting "not" in that sentence. Hey, it's 3 AM.
Turing word: "gendur", which is something else I can't discriminate against. But if I want to keep out Jews by not having any kosher items on my menu, then it's full steam ahead! As an obviously bigot LINO, it's great to be able to legally discriminate against someone finally.
I appreciate the your comments.
We're talking about much more than restaurants and bars - you're ignoring equal housing opportunity, healthcare, basic essential services, and education, to name a few. Equating discrimination with merely being "insensitive" is ridiculous. Being dragged off to jail for trespassing in a public business or being thrown out of your home because of your skin color, as the Libertarians would advocate becuase it is their "property right," is quite a bit more than "insensitivity."
And if you think the media would or could show up for every act of legal discrimination, you're dreaming.
I agree with you that "'government regulation' alone to stop discriminatory practices has never worked and never will" in regards to stopping it entirely. But government regulation has worked better than anything else that has been tried on a national scale, particularly doing nothing.
Finally, you're ignoring a critical part of this discussion: the government either enforces anti-discrimination laws or it enforces the "property right" to private discrimination. There is no middle ground here. Under a Libertarian government, the government would be responsible for forcibly enforcing the right-to-discriminate "property right" of bigoted property owners such as evicting families from apartments, denying entry to hospitals, etc.
So, given the choice between the government enforcing a basic human right not to be discriminated against or enforcing the Libertarian "property right" of bigots and racists to discriminate, any reasonable person would prefer the former. Only bigots, racists, and Libertarians, it would seem, would prefer the latter.
I can understand that as an Ancap, neither of these are particularly appealing to you.
anonone
This is A1's stock-in-trade : taking highly-attenuated hyperbolic hypotheticals and asserting them as the expected norm under libertarian governance, then demanding one defend against the realization of A1's fantasy rendition of the consequences of your beliefs.
There are all kinds of wacky, reality-detached outcomes and eventualities that A1 dreams up to support his/her/its bizarre predictions of a libertarian society.
What this really comes down to is A1's fundamental devotion to authoritarian statism to carry out his/her/its social and ideological control agenda.
Because libertarian thought and philosophy are so dangerous and counter to this, A1 (I believe purposefully) lampoons, caricaturizes, distorts, or just plain plays ignorant in attacking libertarianism, behind a farcical pretense of intellectual discourse and probative discussion.
Your analogy about trying to explain calculus to Fluffy was utterly spot-on.
At least Fluffy won't pretend to know better...
The exceptions must drive all the rules, no matter the affront to liberty, rationality, or even sanity.
The drug war is a perfect example of what this mindset produces.
A tiny percentage of drug users are addicted, drug-addled, or lacking self-control with drugs...
Well then : imprison and criminalize everyone and everything having to do with drugs! (The ones "we" pick and choose, of course).
That'll fix it until (ALL) those few can learn to be responsible (e.g. educated out of their evil behavior).
Of course, drug use is one of the liberties A1 seems to bless, out of the cornucopia of freedoms expressed in a libertarian-oriented society.
At least Bowly discusses the topic.
And there are many many businesses out there that could easily discriminate against minorities without any significant harm to their bottom-lines. But it would be potentially devastating to those being discriminated against, like a family being thrown out of their home.
And I'll ask you again: Do you support the repeal of civil rights laws and other laws that make discrimination by private businesses illegal?
anonone
We know how much you spoil for cheap dishonest digs at all things libertarian.
Spare us the pretense you are here to have any real discourse.
You are looking to corral the unwitting into answering your argumentative contortions, so as to evoke gotcha material you can later take out of context and throw into some other discussion elsewhere. We are all aware of your "__________ said _____________about ____________________ in another thread/another blog."
I'll admit your encyclopedic memory of internet comments made by those you "debate" is about as commendable as your skill in twisting and parphrasing such comments to suit your latest distortion of what your opponents believe or actually said.
Yes, I intend to call attention to "how you roll". I am untroubled you think it all "personal attack".
Seems to me that's a pretty easy question for just about anyone to answer, particularly a knowledgeable republican/libertarian like yourself, Tyler.
I'll just assume that you agree with the Libertarian platform on this.
Meanwhile, you seem to enjoy participating in your own repetitive way in this "circular treadmill of phony discussion" with me.
I wonder if you think that your your influence is somehow enhanced and your repubertarian cause is moved forward by such flame-throwing. I think any of the readers of this blog are more witting then you might believe. You and that other repubertarian Eric both come off more as just angry than anything else.
My digs at libertarianism aren't dishonest. One only has to read the libertarian platform for themselves to see the callousness and impracticality of their governing philosophy. But I guess you don't want to discuss that, so you (and Steve) just dodge it.
Thanks for playing.
anonone
But don't count on any blanket response to your "one-size-fits-all (on my terms)" question(s).
I wish I could say I think you can do better than such sweeping generalized reductions of complex issues down to simplistic questions like the one you repeatedly pose here, but this is precisely the brand of argumentative nonsense that is all you ever bring here.
Really, how oblivious you truly are to the insipidity of your tired tactic of repeating a loaded question, posed on your terms, with your assumptions, your definitions, and your over-simplifications, only to declare victory when none of us will be roped into your tit-tat fishing-for-gotcha game.
It's exactly what you call it : (game) "playing".
No one owes you any answers, and the fact that you aren't getting any to your simplistic question(s) reflects on your own deficiency as a would-be Socratic. (LARF!)
Really, quite laughable.
My first thought: wow, this post now has 18 responses. Sorry, but some days I am that shallow.
My second thought: you are stuck with a particular meme (that all libertarians must be defined by the Libertarian Party platform) and that anybody who differs with you over the best way to eliminate discrimination in a society is either wacky or a closet racist.
If you are honest, you will admit that I have repeatedly offered detail arguments against your position. The fact that you don't agree with them does not mean that they have not been there. But that's not your game: your game is to play "gotcha" rather than to engage in serious talks about what we might agree on, and to discount any evidence that disputes your often fact-free claims.
Here's one that you have never been able to refute, because you have never bothered to deal with it: that "colored only" institutions or segregated schools existed for decades in this country because of the State, not in spite of it. The government made it illegal for African-Americans to attend the same schools, for African-Americans to serve in the same military units, and even for African-Americans to play on the same baseball teams. The mechanism used to challenge those injustices was the most libertarian part of our system: the Courts.
Legislators did not end segregation; judges reacting to the lawsuits brought by a private organization (NAACP) and private citizens (Linda Brown) did so.
On balance, throughout American history the government has been the largest force for discrimination against minorities. To suggest that things like "colored only" establishments represent a failure of libertarianism or any other ideology is to make a specious historical argument.
Further, to suggest that the State is the source of all protections from discrimination is also to empower the State to do evil. Technically, nothing the Nazis did to the Jews in Germany was illegal, because the State passed laws making it so.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Your comments are italicized; mine are not.
My second thought: you are stuck with a particular meme (that all libertarians must be defined by the Libertarian Party platform) and that anybody who differs with you over the best way to eliminate discrimination in a society is either wacky or a closet racist.
No, I believe that anybody who thinks that repealing civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws is going to reduce discrimination is wrong. They may also be whacky and/or a racist and/or a bigot and/or a libertarian. It doesn't matter. But I think the libertarian platform as a model for governance is a joke.
If you are honest, you will admit that I have repeatedly offered detail arguments against your position.
As I recall, you actually have not supported the libertarian platform in this area. So I am not sure which position you have argued against.
The fact that you don't agree with them does not mean that they have not been there. But that's not your game: your game is to play "gotcha" rather than to engage in serious talks about what we might agree on, and to discount any evidence that disputes your often fact-free claims.
I don't know why referring to the language of the libertarian platform can be considered as "fact free." On the other hand, I guess you're right.
I noted in one of my comments that you personally don't agree with this part of the Libertarian platform. I also recall that that led us down the path of the "Who is a Libertarian" game.
I cannot begin to guess how each individual who calls him/herself a libertarian is going to interpret the platform for themselves, so all I have to go on is the platform language. And I think that calling on GLBTs (or anybody else) to join the Libertarian party based on what is written in their platform and their leadership is ridiculous. I am not talking about whatever Steve Newton's view of libertarianism is; I am referring to the national platform itself.
Part 1
Here's one that you have never been able to refute, because you have never bothered to deal with it: that "colored only" institutions or segregated schools existed for decades in this country because of the State, not in spite of it. The government made it illegal for African-Americans to attend the same schools, for African-Americans to serve in the same military units, and even for African-Americans to play on the same baseball teams. The mechanism used to challenge those injustices was the most libertarian part of our system: the Courts.
Legislators did not end segregation; judges reacting to the lawsuits brought by a private organization (NAACP) and private citizens (Linda Brown) did so.
True in many cases. And those legislators were elected by majority votes, and the government failed to protect the civil rights of minorities.
I would not argue with you at all that the federal government has institutionalized discrimination time and time again in heinous and despicable ways, and does to this day. I agree with that. I would also say that this is true for many other countries, like India, for example. But regardless of how we got to where we are today, we do have laws to prevent some discrimination by government and by private businesses as do other western democracies. Compared to where we were 50 years ago, these laws have been mostly successful in taking down the most overt forms of racial and gender discrimination and providing a legal basis for civil suits against private businesses that continue to practice discrimination (such as the violating the Fair Housing act).
The fact that the Libertarian platform and most Libertarians want to eliminate these laws and protections and therefore require the government to enforce discrimination by private businesses as a "property right" is beyond the pale, in my opinion. It would be reinstituting the government as the enforcer of discrimination, only this time at the whim of bigoted private property owners enforcing their "property rights."
On balance, throughout American history the government has been the largest force for discrimination against minorities. To suggest that things like "colored only" establishments represent a failure of libertarianism or any other ideology is to make a specious historical argument.
My argument is not that libertarianism has failed to end discrimination; my argument is that nothing in the libertarian platform would end or prevent it. Because the right "not to trade for any reason" is defined as a "property right" that the government would have to protect by law enforcement, the end result would be a return to pre-civil rights era discriminatory practices only this time dictated willy-nilly by private businesses and enforced by the government under penalties of law.
If you don't agree that there would be endemic discrimination if these laws were repealed, you only have to look at the recent votes against equal rights for gays, the racism bubbling all the time against Obama, and the stated ideology and practices of most mainstream churches. There is still an extreme amount of prejudice and bigotry in this country.
Further, to suggest that the State is the source of all protections from discrimination is also to empower the State to do evil. Technically, nothing the Nazis did to the Jews in Germany was illegal, because the State passed laws making it so.
Can I invoke Godwin's law here? ☺
I never said that the "state is the source of all protections from discrimination." I said that laws against discrimination by the government and private business owners have been the most effective way to stop discrimination in this country and others. Nothing else has even come close. Ultimately the only thing that will end discrimination is education and experience.
Just because the power of the state can be grossly and horribly abused like Nazi Germany does not mean that it cannot also be used for enhance the general welfare. In this country there are many examples of agencies that the government has created and used to enhance the general welfare that Libertarianism would destroy. The fact that a state can do evil doesn't mean that you should take away its ability to do good.
Finally, this discussion began because you were advocating that GLBTs join the libertarian party. Having a member of the Catholic Church, one of the most virulent opponents of equal rights for gays and women, telling GLBTs what to do is like watching someone handing out PETA fliers while wearing a fur coat.
anonone
Among your many differences with me I have never actually taken anything personally until this statement:
Having a member of the Catholic Church, one of the most virulent opponents of equal rights for gays and women, telling GLBTs what to do is like watching someone handing out PETA fliers while wearing a fur coat.
You have absolutely no idea regarding my motives regarding the Catholic Church or my activities therein. You do know, since you read this blog, that I have registered outrage and called out the local Diocese for poor behavior, especially toward gays, regarding priestly abuse, and other issues. I have never been an apologist for the Church.
You also know that I have been the single most steadfast political blogger in Delaware supporting LBGQT rights.
You presume entirely too much.
I am finished with this discussion.
I only know what I read on this blog about you. You have openly discussed your membership in that Church and your differences with it. It remains a mystery to me how a person with your education and unwavering beliefs in human rights and freedom could join and remain a member of an organization that has stood in steadfast opposition to free thought, free expression, and equal rights both today and throughout its history.
So, no, I don't understand your "motives regarding the Catholic Church or [your] activities therein" because your membership in that institution is antithetical to the other principles you stand for.
I presumed nothing.
I am just telling you what it looks like to this outsider.
anonone
I've noticed that nobody is really answering your questions, and that this douche tyler nixon is being a complete troll. Also, fuck sallies, everyone thinks sallies is a bunch of mother fuckers.
That being said, yes, I would support the repeal of civil rights laws. And I agree with you, many minority groups might shun the libertarian party because of this position, mostly because of all the spin this issue recieves. Basically, the reason that we would oppose civil rights legislation is that if the constitution is interpereted correctly, every individual already has the same civil rights. Also, civil rights laws really just force people to think and act in a certain way, and libertarians think that force should never be used to justify the means. No matter how fucked up somebody is, it is not right to use force in an attempt to shape their opinions. We believe that this force simply causes these people to hunker down and cling to their delusional bigotry.
Eventually, bigotry will go away, and until that happens, we believe that is is best not to prolong it. We believe is is best to force people to deal with it, because we will eventually get over it.
There may some businesses that prohibit certain groups, but not many. If there was a hospital or an apartment building that was whites only, then technically they could kick you out. For the hospital, that would be against the doctors code, and they would have to treat you first. With the apartment, I doubt that anyone would sign a contract where they could get kicked out if they were not white. But I also sincerely doubt that any of these places would exist in the first place. But if it did happen, tough luck its a free country, and both of these businesses would be ruined. I doubt that any bigoted businesses would exist, because there is no evidence that they have ever existed outside of government mandated segregation. You must remember, those businesses only existed in the south because they were forced to segregate by the jim crow laws.
In short, I doubt these places would exist without civil rights laws, and if they did, the owners have the right to discriminate. The free market is the bane of bigotry, while civil rights laws allow it to fester. I see where you are coming from, I just think that your methods lead to bigotry. Market forces have worked in stopping discrimination, while forcing people has harbored discrimination.
I will not put people into groups like everyone else has done. Any person who understands that every one should be equal, and have equal rights should be a libertarian. Anyone who understands that market forces combat bigotry, and that government force causes bigotry, should be a libertarian.
It is absurd for anyone to join the republicrat party which supports militarism, keynsian economics, and something that it calls civil rights legislation, but actually leads to racism and bigotry. That is why I support the repeal of civil rights legislation.
This is my view especially about the federal government, because its job is to protect constitutional rights.
I am not nesecerily opposed to state or local civil rights laws, because they have the right to pass them under the 10th amendment.
Perhaps in businesses that are vital to human needs, such as clothing, food, housing. But they are still unneeded and unconstitutional.
Now I must ask you why you support zoning laws. I think that this cult organization owns the land, and should be allowed to feed the bums if it wants to. Although i wouldn't feed them because it just rewards their anti social behavior.