So, a Jewish restaurant owner should be forced by law to serve a Neo-Nazi?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rothbard
  • Start date Start date
This issue isn't as simplistic for me as it seems to be made out by libertarians who are supporting Rand Paul.

I don't see anything inherently racist with his suggestion that private business owners should be able to refuse service to those whom they don't wish to serve. It seems like a perfectly normal economically libertarian stance. In fact, that doesn't automatically sound very bad at all. Working as a manager in several different retail stores I have certainly asked people to leave before.

The problem though for me with things such as publicly tolerating high levels of racism and segregation (even if you disagree with them) carries with it a lot of negative externalities that I think should be taken into account when we look at issues such as this one.

Social division is harmful, and the effects of that division most certainly carry far beyond the private business in which they would be experienced. Allowing communities where blacks aren't served becomes damaging to the overall social stability and well being of the nation. It can (and has) promoted further division, further polarization, the institutionalization of racism and even to violence (both isolated and wide scale). When we look back at the history of this country and the history of how wide scale racism has affected us (and other societies such as South Africa, Rhodesia etc) then I think that there is a much stronger argument for the curtailment of these specific private business rights.

It may seem completely silly to say force a Jewish person to serve a neo-Nazi as you put it, but I think the bigger picture here is where the ruling stems from and not rather absurd examples such as that.
 
They have a right to quit.

Next people wont be served because they were to ugly.

Quit or do your job.
 
This isn't a simple trade.

The store owner has a business. He could sit back and trade with his friends from his house if he wanted to and be as racist as he liked.

When you seek protection through the state to operate a business through reduced self-liability. I think the state can then say "you cannot discriminate against any of the members of the state when in sales".

I'd say that's fair.
 
Well sure but if I like fucking goats that's probably not going to be a big deal until I wear the goat-fucker logo or uniform. Maybe people can just take their skin off.
 
Harmful to whom, and by what standard?

In order for you to say this, you have to completely negate individual valuation, otherwise you face the simple contradiction posed by someone who says (and means) something like "I'd rather live in a shack than share a mansion with a black man."
 
A Neo-Nazi has a constitutional right to walk in a Jewish restaurant and expect to get served a meal. The Jewish cook also has a right to do this to the Nazi's french toast


http://tinyurl.com/ccu3oo
 
Because Senator Robert Byrd is a Senator, one of 100, not a Congressmen, one of 441. But mainly because Byrd is STILL a Senator who is constantly elected time and time again by Democrats and NOT a "Former" member of Congress who was kicked to the curb by the Republican Party.

[Edit]

As was also pointed out above ...

Duke first ran for the Louisiana State Senate as a Democrat from a Baton Rouge district in 1975.

In 1979, he ran as a Democrat for the 10th district Senate seat and finished second in a three-candidate race with 9,897 votes (26 percent).

In 1988, Duke ran initially in the Democratic presidential primaries.

In December 1988, Duke changed his political affiliation from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

In 1990, in the October 6 primary, Duke ran as a Republican against three Democrats including incumbent Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Jr. The Republican Party endorsed state Senator Ben Bagert of New Orleans, but national GOP officials anticipated that Bagert could not win and was fragmenting Johnston's support; so funding for Bagert's campaign was halted, and he dropped out two days before the election, though his name remained on the ballot.

In 1992 Duke ran for the nomination. Republican Party officials tried to block his participation. (Something the Democrats DIDN'T do).
 
Nice job embedding the YouTube video. I'm watching it right now.


Mother fucker.


edit--
Here you go dildo.
[y]Z4ZXRlcoEW8[/y]
 
And also to alleviate any misconceptions that Republicans are the ones that are racist.
 
Desert Eagle said:
Because Senator Robert Byrd is a Senator, one of 100, not a Congressmen, one of 441. But mainly because Byrd is STILL a Senator who is constantly elected time and time again by Democrats and NOT a "Former" member of Congress who was kicked to the curb by the Republican Party.

[Edit]

As was also pointed out above ...

Duke first ran for the Louisiana State Senate as a Democrat from a Baton Rouge district in 1975.

In 1979, he ran as a Democrat for the 10th district Senate seat and finished second in a three-candidate race with 9,897 votes (26 percent).

In 1988, Duke ran initially in the Democratic presidential primaries.

In December 1988, Duke changed his political affiliation from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

In 1990, in the October 6 primary, Duke ran as a Republican against three Democrats including incumbent Senator J. Ben
Click to expand...
 
Billy:

you need to go into this thread and say "I sent him the pics and he gave me a sub! "

I dunno if it is worth while, but you just might fuck with them.

http://forums.offtopic.com/showthread.php?p=129990255#post129990255
 
The later does not negate the former.

Considering the NAACP hands out ratings like that only to Democrats, and only endorses Democrats, are you really surprised at the NAACP "rating system"?
 
Who gives a crap. He was racist before, he probably still is, and "changed" for political purposes, like they all do.
 
Back
Top