That's a ridiculous argument. Any country where some citizens are allowed to discriminate against other citizens in public facilities because of the color of their skin or ethnic background is not one I want to live in. Ending discrimination by race was a good thing...period! No wonder libertarians can't get more than one percent of the vote.
Parenthetically I have been to places in the south in the last ten years that refused to serve me (by ignoring me) because, I assume, I was white (or maybe because I was bald, who the hell knows). I was certainly the only white person in the joint. In one place I was told "my kind" wasn't welcome there and I should leave.
I figured they were exercising their right to be an a** (or freedom of association) and "moved on".
"That's a ridiculous argument. Any country where some citizens are allowed to discriminate against other citizens in public facilities because of the color of their skin or ethnic background is not one I want to live in. Ending discrimination by race was a good thing...period! No wonder libertarians can't get more than one percent of the vote."
I tend to think it would have still happened, with the power of the free market. Might not have been as quick, but it would be more thorough. I think if the market were allowed to work and if we had supported the private property rights then the disparity between races would not exist today.
These are just my thoughts, and yes I can't even begin to imagine the pure, unadulterated racism that existed in that time. I agree that it is a blight on American history. But I tend to think the blight would be much forgotten if the solution was found in the market and left to the individual. The government is the absolute worst way to solve social problems.
Do you support adding sexual deviant behaviour to the civil rights legislation and forcing private property owners and private business owners to not be allowed to discriminate against certain sexual behaviours? If not, why not? No, I am not equating the race issue with behavioural choices. I am asking if one discrimination should be allowed and not another.
Your reply is a study in illogic.
First off, calling it a ridiculous argument doesn't make it one.
Second, there are studies that demonstrate that racial integration and acceptance was trending positively until federal desegregation catalyzed everyone again. Jackie Robinson played baseball without the government's help. Even before Brown and the Civil Rights act, the Baton Rouge boycott had occurred. The civil rights movement would have proceeded apace without the government action, and likely with less southern white resistance. The decision in Brown polarized public opinion, stiffened white southern resistance and put southern white racial moderates in a politically difficult position.
Third, as to your emotive "why, I won't live in a country that allows public discrimination!" b.s., guess what? You do. Social security discriminates against black men every day. Black men don't live as long, and they don't have much of a chance of collecting. And laws regarding public facilities notwithstanding, go hang out in a NYC or DC public school someday and see how integrated they are. There is plenty of institutionalized racism. It may not be cloaked in legality, but passing laws doesn't solve a damn thing if people aren't ready for the change. People weren't. They probably won't be for another hundred years, because forcing PC viewpoints on people doesn't result in them HAVING PC viewpoints, but silently seething about their own subjugation.
Finally, your statement that "ending discrimination by race was a good thing...period" demonstrates that you are one of these folks who thinks that because it does a "good thing," a law is good. You are foolish if you believe that. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a nightmare that has resulted in a lawyer's bonanza. Every law has unintended consequences. 1964 was a banner year for those. And as to Brown, well, how many people died, and how many federal programs were spawned to support that travesty of anti-federalism? Would it not have been simpler to let the Southerners alone and, as you say, "not live in" those states? I firmly believe that the South would have economically been forced into changing, as its educated people moved North to escape that racism, but I will never know, as people like you preferred to force that change on people who were not ready. Ending racism is an individual decision. Government can't and won't effect that change.
But in response to your wonderful statement that 'ending discrimination by race was a good thing...period,' let me ask you this: knowing that blacks DO face some discrimination on the basis of their skin color, isn't affirmative action a good thing...period...as it helps to remedy that? You are no conservative if you answer yes, and you are not true to your blanket statement if you answer no.
Your non sequitur about libertarians was further indication of your inability to defend your ideas. Consider an AOL or Disney board, where you can "argue" with people who you might have a shot at "logically" dissuading.