Did not say that the business owner was white... Perhaps he is Asian... I dont know man... Joey will be better able to cope with bigots when he is older be that cops or whoever. Protecting his innocence as long as possible will help him imo... True. But is life not better/easier for minorities with the protections/laws we have now ?
Perhaps it is censorship and an infringement of free speech to stop business owners putting hate/racist/bigoted signs in their shop windows. But surely you agree that it is a positive thing for society as a whole that hatred like this is not tolerated/allowed ?
You said " other white people. You think seeing a sign would rob him of his innocence? The longer you protect innocence, the more naive and "innocent" that person will be when shit hits the fan and they realize how bad people can suck. No doubt, and thats good in some ways. Some ways its infair against people who AREN"T minorities. Will people care about these minority laws when white people become the minority? That day is coming.
Reminds me of the argument for prohibition. Surely you agree that it is a positive thing for a society as a whole to not allow people to do methamphetamine?
Yes, i think its great that SOCIETY does not allow or tolerate it. However i don't think the government i as good at enforcing it as people think. Stopping someone from acting, is not the same as not allowing them to hate.
Never tried it so could not comment... Perhaps it is prohibitive to have laws that protect minorities from being discriminated against but what about individuals that happen to be minorities right to not have to tolerate such hate and bigotry ? Is their any grey area in Libertarian ideology or is everything black and white ? What sounds good on paper may not always translate well when put into practice. Perhaps decent people would revolt and attack such business's that are obviously bigoted and racist ? Protests would ensue and the private security firms employed by the bigoted business's would have to try and stop pickets etc.. This could lead to a new Civil Rights movement and if the majority decide to implement new laws that protect minorities then there would be nothing to stop them. This would lead to a collapse of the total Libertarian state and a return to the current laws that protect minorities...
You don't have the right to not be offended. If you want to live in a free society, you're going to have to tolerate the racists and bigots so long as they don't aggress against anyone. There's room to compromise. And that's why we shouldn't implement policies on a national scale unless they're "no-brainers". The federal government can't babysit everyone. Those people would probably be prosecuted. Pickets? You mean protests? If they're not protesting on the bigot's property, then I don't see a problem so long as the property owner of where they are protesting is ok with it. You're right! Let's just hope this "majority" doesn't implement these laws on a national scale. A true libertarian state in the United States would never allow civil rights legislation that censored speech to be passed. Remember the first amendment?
How would a true Libertarian state stop the majority of individuals from doing what they wanted ? Through force and coercion ?
Probably. I guess it depends on what the majority is doing. If they're attacking/intimidating people, then yes, they would probably be met with coercion.
Exactly. Isnt that the only REAL way to stop anything? Even then it only stops for the moment. Libertarians live by the belief that you will NEVER stop people from doing what they wanted. Even if we were comepletely controlled by government, large groups of people would STILL do whatever they wanted. To be clear though, in a true libertarian state, there would not be reprocussions for anything you do, unless you inflict something upon someone else. Thus, force and coercion would be required less often.
First, we have to recognize slavery as an economic system that was accepted worldwide, and not a racist system. Blacks weren't trading blacks and holding black slaves because they were self-hating blacks, they did it because it was the economic system of the time. The US had grown dependent on slave labor and were taking longer than the rest of the world to abolish it... but that's not to say it wouldn't have ended (relatively) peacefully like it did for all other nations. So the downfall of slavery in the US came through brutal war, the deadliest in our nations history. This left the white southern plebs with a nasty taste in their mouth, and no doubt fostered a racist resentment which still lasts to this day. In seeming retaliation the southern states instituted the unconstitutional Jim Crow Laws, claiming that while they were segregated, they were equal. This wasn't the case, however, and this state-enforced, institutionalized racism shouldn't have been permitted under the equal protection clause. To your question, "Did America open their shops...", no. But that is only because they weren't given the chance to. They went from one form of institutionalized racism to another without the opportunity to experience equality and the repurcussions of racism. But let's not forget the case of the Greensboro sit-ins, peaceful protest that desegregated private businesses, such as the infamous Woolworth's lunch counter. Wouldn't you prefer this method to state coercion? It seems the market was already on the right path when the state co-opted the civil rights movement with their unnecessary infringement on private property rights. Because now we have harassment and discrimination law suits all the time for complete bullshit. Private businesses should have all the say in who they let in, whether it be dark skinned people or neonazis. You have no right to use someone elses property, no matter how insane they are. Frankly you shouldn't be giving your money to racists. Wait, you mean crimes would have to actually have VICTIMS?!?
There's basically two incompatible beliefs on this board: 1. The majority 2. The aggressed individual
So would you agree with me in that if business owners were allowed to serve who they wanted and display signs such as No Blacks, Midgets, Obese etc etc.. in a Libertarian USA then the majority would revolt against same and push for laws to protect minorities ?
How long would it have taken the market to find its way to the end of the path though ? Are property rights more important than an individuals right to go about his day without having to face discrimination ? The property owner is an individual obviously but i cannot understand how you can justify his right to discriminate against other individuals based on sex, race, religion etc.. Some have exploited the laws but surely that is an implementation problem rather than the laws and protections being bullshit. Lawyers and judges are to blame and not the laws imo.
Q for Libertarians. As regards public services such as fire departments, ambulances , police etc... how would this operate in a Libertarian USA ? Would all individuals have to pay a tax to benefit from these services ?
What is done for national defense if you don't have a single entity to plan and execute orders? Will it be every man for himself?
Services would be paid for voluntarily, possibly through a subscription. I'm sure there would be some free riders for these services, but I'm sure that happens now anyways. I think I posted an article in this thread about why free riders wouldn't necessarily be a big problem in a libertarian society. Yea, about 30 posts ago, I posted this article: Solving the "Problem" of Free Riding - Ben O'Neill - Mises Daily You don't need a fascist military with a top-down authority to defend your property. Entire companies would form around security and protection services. It would be more decentralized obviously, but this doesn't make it weaker in any way. This notion that centralization on a national scale is necessary is pretty fucking bogus. So, to answer your question, no, it would not be "every man for himself."