Fight Bigotry Without Government

[shagdrum]

Fight Bigotry Without Government
How the free market undermines racism and segregation
John Stossel

"Backwards and hateful ideas ... oust John Stossel," said Colorofchange.org.

In a newspaper, the organization went on:

"It's time that FOX drop Stossel ... we'll go directly after the network with a public campaign unlike anything we've pursued to date."

Media Matters joined in: "By airing Stossel's repugnant comments, Fox legitimizes his indefensible position."

What "indefensible" position did I take?

I said this: "Private businesses ought to get to discriminate. I won't ever go to a place that's racist, and I will tell everybody else not to, and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist."

Read that carefully: I condemned racism. I said I'd speak out against and boycott a racist's business. But to some people, I committed heresy. I failed to accept the entire catechism. I didn't say that we need government to fight racism and prohibit racist policies in private establishments.

For this, they demand that I be fired.

This controversy started when Rand Paul, who had just won a senatorial primary, told TV talker Rachel Maddow that the part of the Civil Rights Act that bans discrimination by private business is improper interference with property owners' rights. He, too, condemned racism.

But the chattering class's reaction to Paul's statements must have made him uncomfortable. The next day, he issued a statement saying that he would have voted for the entire act because federal intervention was needed.

Maybe. At the time, racism was so pervasive that such an intrusive law may have been a good thing. But, as a libertarian, I say: Individuals should be surrounded by a sphere of privacy where government does not intrude. Part of the Civil Rights Act violates freedom of association. That's why I told Fox's Megyn Kelly, "It's time now to repeal that part of the law."

You can't say that in America?

America's fundamental political philosophy has deteriorated quite a bit if we can't distinguish between government and private conduct. I enthusiastically support the parts of the civil rights act that struck down Jim Crow laws, which required segregation in government facilities, mass transit, and sometimes in private restaurants and hotels. Jim Crow was evil. It had no place in America.

Racist policies in private restaurants are also evil, but they do not involve force. Government is force, so it should not be used to combat nonviolent racism on private property, even property open to the public.

I just don't trust government to decide what discrimination is acceptable. Its clumsy fist cannot deter private nonviolent racism without stomping on the rights of individuals. Today, because of government antidiscrimination policy, all-women gyms are sued and forced to admit men, a gay softball team is told it may not reject bisexuals and a Christian wedding photographer is fined thousands of dollars for refusing to take photos of a homosexual wedding.

I'll say it again: Racial discrimination is bad. But we have ways besides government to end it. The free market often punishes racists. Today, a business that doesn't hire blacks loses customers and good employees. It will atrophy, while its more inclusive competitors thrive.

In the pre-1964 South, things were different. But even then, private forces worked against bigotry. White owners of railroads and streetcars objected to mandated segregation. Historian Jennifer Roback writes that in 1902 the Mobile Light and Railroad Company "flat out refused to enforce" Mobile, Alabama's segregation law.

In cities throughout the South, beginning in 1960, student-led sit-ins and boycotts peacefully shamed businesses into desegregating whites-only lunch counters. Those voluntary actions were the first steps in changing a rancid culture. If anything, Washington jumped on a bandwagon that was already rolling.

It wasn't free markets in the South that perpetuated racism. It was government colluding with private individuals (some in the KKK) to intimidate those who would have integrated.

It was private action that started challenging the racists, and it was succeeding—four years before the Civil Rights Act passed.

Government is a blunt instrument of violence that one day might do something you like but the next day will do something you abhor. Better to leave things to us—people—acting together privately.

 

[foxpaws]

That is why I am still interested shag....
Do you agree that private business should be allowed to discriminate, should Title II be repealed?
What do you think?

I know what Stossel thinks (very little), how about you shag?

And I know how Bill O'Reilly also thinks...

 

[shagdrum]

I know what Stossel thinks (very little), how about you shag?

What is "very little" supposed to mean?

You expect me to view your question with something more then distrust, as something asked in good faith yet you show an utter contempt for honest ideas you are opposed to in the same post, belying a thinly veiled hostility toward that entire viewpoint already?

Given your past on this forum not to mention your actions here, why should I even bother to consider the possibility that you might have turned over a new leaf?

 

[foxpaws]

If you are interested... from the Color of Change website that is referenced by Stossel

Dear friends,

On Wednesday, Rand Paul, the GOP's US Senate candidate for Kentucky repeated his claim that a central piece of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was wrong, and that businesses should be free to discriminate against whomever they please.1 Paul and his supporters don't seem to care that without federal intervention, Black people might still be second-class citizens in most aspects of American life: where we eat, where we work, even where we live.

Then, on Thursday, FOX contributor and business anchor John Stossel went even further than Paul and called for the section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that applies to business to be repealed.2 And he's refused to back down.

It's time to hold FOX accountable:

While Rand Paul may have started this outrage, he can be taken care of at the ballot box — FOX News can't.

Stossel's position is an affront to Black America and everyone in this country who believes in racial progress. It's one thing to be a candidate with backwards views. It's another to be employed by a supposed news network and to use that platform to push hateful ideas that our nation repudiated decades ago.

It's time that FOX drop Stossel. It's why I've joined ColorOfChange.org in demanding Fox do so immediately. If after hearing from thousands of people like you and I, FOX refuses to act, it will make clear that FOX stands with Stossel and his values, and ColorOfChange has pledged to go directly after the network with a major public campaign.

Can you take a moment to add your voice to the call to fire Stossel? After you do, please ask your friends and family to do the same:

FOX has a history of providing a platform for bigoted views and race-baiting. Most recently more than 300,000 people helped us hold FOX accountable by stripping Glenn Beck of more than 100 of his advertisers, after Beck called President Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people."3

But Stossel has arguably gone beyond Beck, echoing segregationist arguments from the Jim Crow era:

"It's time now to repeal that part of the law because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist."

Stossel went on to argue something that history has disproved time and again — that private business will do the right thing, without being compelled by laws, because no one would patronize a business that discriminates. It's a blind belief in market fundamentalism that just isn't in sync with reality. In the '60s, white-owned businesses that allowed Blacks as customers lost business. Market forces actually perpetuated discrimination; they didn't combat it. Simply put: segregation would still be active in parts of this country if government hadn't stepped in.

And recent history has shown that the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act is still needed. In 1994, it was used to hold Denny's Restaurants accountable, after the chain repeatedly refused to seat Black customers.4 Just last year, it was used to go after a Philadelphia pool that prevented Black children from swimming there.5

It's time for Fox News to make a choice. Are they willing to continue to give a platform to racially-divisive rhetoric and revive dangerously outdated perspectives? Or will they move with the rest of the nation into into the 21st century? Please join me in calling on Fox News to fire John Stossel. And once you do, please ask your friends and family to do the same:

Thank you.​

 

[Calabrio]

Color of Change. Isn't that the race baiting, internet organization that was originally founded by one-time Obama advisor and communist superstar, Van Jones?

 

[foxpaws]

What is "very little" supposed to mean?

You expect me to view your question with something more then distrust, as something asked in good faith yet you show an utter contempt for honest ideas you are opposed to in the same post, belying a thinly veiled hostility toward that entire viewpoint already?

Given your past on this forum not to mention your actions here, why should I even bother to consider the possibility that you might have turned over a new leaf?

I know very little about what Stossel thinks (that is why the disclaimer - because you would have called me on 'how do you know what Stossel thinks', been there, done that) - however about this subject I do know what he thinks - he has espoused a stand very clearly-he at least has the balls to say he would repeal Title II.

That is why I am still interested shag....
Do you agree that private business should be allowed to discriminate, should Title II be repealed?
What do you think?

 

[Calabrio]

Foxpaws, do you think that laws like title II lead to, what is foolishly called, "reverse" discrimination and quotas?

 

[foxpaws]

Color of Change. Isn't that the race baiting, internet organization that was originally founded by one-time Obama advisor and communist superstar, Van Jones?

Race baiting - certainly an opinion you are entitled to Cal.

Started by Van Jones and James Rucker in response to the lack of voice (largely the political internet voice) by the black/poor/elderly community in the wake of Katrina.

Got Jones's Communist Card handy Cal - or is this more 'communist baiting' on your side...

 

[foxpaws]

Foxpaws, do you think that laws like title II lead to, what is foolishly called, "reverse" discrimination and quotas?

No - it is a commerce issue - maybe you should look at Title VII in the Civil Rights Act Cal - it more directly address the issues you are referring to.

 

[FIND]

Foxpaws, do you think that laws like title II lead to, what is foolishly called, "reverse" discrimination and quotas?

One of the best things about humanity is that we can take anything good, think it's a silver bullet, then overuse it until it does bad things. Doesn't make Title VII bad (since I assume that is what you meant). Just means that people are, by nature, bad.

 

[FIND]

Fight Bigotry Without Government

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to me that the free market is enough to overcome human stupidity. I mean, I would agree that in a perfect world, a market economy should provide a greater incentive to not discriminate than to discriminate, but, people as a whole, are stupid.

 

[shagdrum]

I know very little about what Stossel thinks

Ok, my mistake.

That is why I am still interested shag....
Do you agree that private business should be allowed to discriminate, should Title II be repealed?
What do you think?

That is basically two separate questions.

Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate? yes.

Should Title II be repealed? In an ideal world, it should be removed from law (though repeal is not the best means for that). Realistically, no.

Ideally, Title II is bad precedent based on a distortion of the interstate commerce clause (something I will discuss more at a latter time in a different post; possibly a new thread). It infringes on liberty and circumvents the rule of law through specious reasoning and should be removed from law; preferably through a SCOTUS that was in fact doing their job instead of legislating from the bench.

Realistically, while it is ultimately an infringement on liberty, that infringement is relatively minor, it would be politically imprudent to attempt to repeal and probably wouldn't happen even if it were attempted. Still, it is bad precedent that is unconstitutional and should be recognized as such to avoid repeating it.

Frankly, there are more important things at the moment that need attention. Title II is a relatively minor concern that ultimately distracts from those things.

It is similar to my Kansas legislature's attempt to push through a bill that would effectively put adult businesses out of business when there are far more pressing matters; like balancing the budget. Instead, some idiotic moral crusaders on the right decided to push this issue as a means of political gamesmanship for the coming elections. A similar law was passed in Missouri.

 

[cammerfe]

The Chattering Class

Completely aside from an excellent exposition regarding the difference between the proper government function of protection and the governmental intrusion that would legislate private thoughts or coerce activities, Stossel did a real service by labeling the 'chattering class'.

Luckily, our own chattering class here mostly provides comic relief.
KS

 

[shagdrum]

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to me that the free market is enough to overcome human stupidity. I mean, I would agree that in a perfect world, a market economy should provide a greater incentive to not discriminate than to discriminate, but, people as a whole, are stupid.

Overcome it? No.
Use the flaws in human nature as an inherent (if imperfect) check upon itself, definitely!

That means of turning human flaws against one another would ultimately minimize discrimination in the private sector by creating an incentive structure that works against discrimination. Stossel and Williams have both alluded to how it would do that.

As Cal, myself and at least two articles have pointed out, discrimination in the south was institutionalized through government, not through the private sector.

Look at the means of causation in how that discrimination was institutionalized in the South. If private businesses (variable 1) were removed as a political influence, discrimination could still have been institutionalized (likely due to some other political interest). However, if the government (variable 2) were removed from enforcing the will of certain special interests (rooted in private business or not), discrimination would not have been institutionalized.

That basic question of which variable was necessary for the discrimination to be institutionalized is what you need proof of, one way or the other to ascertain how true that argument above is or is not.

The Walter E. Williams article points to empirical evidence to back up the claim that the removal of government as a variable in that scenario would result in discrimination not being institutionalized.

 

[shagdrum]

Just means that people are, by nature, bad.

There are a lot of implications from that basic proposition. Most all social/political philosophical views stem from some basic assumption in regards to human nature. Everything else is derived from that.

I would not agree that humans are bad, but that they are a mix. Capable of both good and bad. They can do good for both good and bad reasons and they can do bad for both good and bad reasons.

However, acknowledging that inherent evil in humans changes the entire viewpoint concerning society.

 

[shagdrum]

If you are interested... from the Color of Change website that is referenced by Stossel

Stossel went on to argue something that history has disproved time and again — that private business will do the right thing, without being compelled by laws, because no one would patronize a business that discriminates. It's a blind belief in market fundamentalism that just isn't in sync with reality. In the '60s, white-owned businesses that allowed Blacks as customers lost business. Market forces actually perpetuated discrimination; they didn't combat it. Simply put: segregation would still be active in parts of this country if government hadn't stepped in.

And recent history has shown that the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act is still needed. In 1994, it was used to hold Denny's Restaurants accountable, after the chain repeatedly refused to seat Black customers.4 Just last year, it was used to go after a Philadelphia pool that prevented Black children from swimming there.5​

It is very easy to misrepresent opposing views, paint them as extreme and then cherry pick, oversimplify and distort incidents to provide (by implication) circumstantial evidence to fit the narrative you have drawn. However, circumstantial evidence doesn't prove anything and an argument based on misrepresentation is invalid.

also, an issue that has been pointed out numerous times in this debate is how hard it is to prove discrimination beyond a reasonable doubt. The court's test for this is...specious at best. In short, it is highly likely that this letter is simply assuming discrimination in this cases it cites and, because the CRA was used in these cases, it justifies the need for CRA to prevent discrimination. That is called circular reasoning.

 

[FIND]

Overcome it? No.
Use the flaws in human nature as an inherent (if imperfect) check upon itself, definitely!

That means of turning human flaws against one another would ultimately minimize discrimination in the private sector by creating an incentive structure that works against discrimination. Stossel and Williams have both alluded to how it would do that.

As Cal, myself and at least two articles have pointed out, discrimination in the south was institutionalized through government, not through the private sector.

Look at the means of causation in how that discrimination was institutionalized in the South. If private businesses (variable 1) were removed as a political influence, discrimination could still have been institutionalized (likely due to some other political interest). However, if the government (variable 2) were removed from enforcing the will of certain special interests (rooted in private business or not), discrimination would not have been institutionalized.

That basic question of which variable was necessary for the discrimination to be institutionalized is what you need proof of, one way or the other to ascertain how true that argument above is or is not.

The Walter E. Williams article points to empirical evidence to back up the claim that the removal of government as a variable in that scenario would result in discrimination not being institutionalized.

No, discrimination in the south was a collaboration by all parties involved. If businesses in the south did not want to discriminate, they had the option of not doing so. Plus, you would have seen a push by business in the south to repeal such laws. Whites only signs did not only exist in public buildings though, therefore history teaches us that private business, and private parties were the ones at fault for discrimination. If government was removed from this equation, you would have still had the SAME discrimination disseminated in the same manner. The south during the era prior to CRA 1964 illustrates my point perfectly. People will do stupid things in the name of stupid beliefs that are not good for them or others.

As for Williams..... I find he will regularly make assumptions as such to justify his beliefs, which there is nothing truly wrong with. He is saying, what if this, then maybe this. But it amounts to nothing more than that. History demonstrates that his views are incorrect in many cases. In a perfect world, with perfectly predictable people, without the "bad" influences, he would be absolutely correct. However, government and business are a reflection of society. Federal government is not always the most accurate reflection of society as a whole, but local government and local business are a pretty good reflection of the views of society on a local level. Therefore, if local government and local business were involved in widespread discrimination, I would say that removing any factor other than the people is not going to change anything.

People are ultimately the problem, because people in general are dumb and prone to self-destructive acts.

 

[foxpaws]

That is basically two separate questions.

Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate? yes.

Should Title II be repealed? In an ideal world, it should be removed from law (though repeal is not the best means for that). Realistically, no.

Thank you shag - it didn't hurt too much I hope

And I really mean thank you - I would love to discuss this with you, and beyond the classroom, beyond calling me dishonest and in turn, me calling you elitist...

So, your answer basically goes with Cal's. Private business should be allowed to discriminate, but in reality, Title II should stand, basically with a slap on the wrist, with an admonishment to not do it again...

I actually worked quite a bit with civil rights leaders - finally I get to discuss this with you on a practical level. What 'practically' would happen when private business is allowed to discriminate or segregate.

We all know that the pursuit of happiness would allow us to use our property as we see fit, removing government (at all levels) intervention, so long as the old, my rights stop when yours start - more or less - adage is followed. Pretty easy when it comes to property - lines are very clearly drawn.

First - segregation and discrimination was harmful to blacks. Whether it was state/local government enforced (Jim Crow laws) or just a small private business (which weren't really affected by Jim Crow laws, beyond the bathroom thing) that hung out a sign that said 'White Only', the widespread discrimination on both government and private levels was perpetuating a class system in the South after the Civil War. There was substantial loss of 'quality of life' among blacks from continued segregation and discrimination. So, why is regulating an activity (segregation/ discrimination) that generates so much harm to many people any different than an activity like pollution that generates harm?

Your property rights end, pollution wise, where my property begins. If you pollute the groundwater that I need to grow my crops, then we have decided through law that is violating my rights. You will be required to stop. Fair enough.

So, the harm generated by both private and public segregation/ discrimination could be seen as similar to the pollution issue. Your 'right' to be a bigot stops when it harms/infringes on the rights of others. And creating and perpetuating a class system infringed on the rights (harmed) a specific group of people, in this case, the blacks in the south.

One person throwing garbage in the water system might not be seen as 'harming' those downstream, and in fact wouldn't effect the groundwater significantly on its own. However, 80 people doing the same thing will harm the water system. The aggregate result of many polluting is infringing on the rights of perhaps one farmer downstream. So, we don't allow anyone to throw their garbage in the water. There isn't any 'guarantee' that those people, even if they say they won't throw their garbage in the river, will keep their word. So, we regulate them.

Yes, one business that discriminates in a small town probably won't harm the quality of life of the black community. However, 10 businesses that decide to discriminate could harm the black community. So we don't allow the one, because we know what happens when many discriminate, it harms the group it is targeting, it removes 'quality of life'. Title II is a form of regulation.

Next, you might say that the free market wouldn't create or encourage discrimination, however, it often comes down to what is the price you want to pay...

That probably should be discussed after this...

Oh, I posted the Color of Change thing so people could see what Stossel was talking about in the article you posted. I don't agree with all of it shag - it was just an 'informational' post. However, the fact that the moderators removed the links seems to be a bit heavy handed. They left the links when we were talking about Beck's "Restoring Honor" which asked for money for Beck's rally, however they removed the links to the Color of Change write in campaign against Stossel.

Discrimination in action perhaps.

 

[Marcus]

withdrawn for now.

 

[cammerfe]

Lotta 'deads' around here.
KS

 

[shagdrum]

No, discrimination in the south was a collaboration by all parties involved. If businesses in the south did not want to discriminate, they had the option of not doing so.

I would agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second.

It was a combination of all parties involved. But which parties were necessary for it to occur? Only by leveraging government to enforce certain standards could private businesses discriminate for long; free market forces would (and in other areas of the country did) work against it.

Also, under Jim Crow laws, businesses did not have the option of not discriminating.

Plus, you would have seen a push by business in the south to repeal such laws. Whites only signs did not only exist in public buildings though, therefore history teaches us that private business, and private parties were the ones at fault for discrimination.

If businesses were being intimidated by other special interest groups, like the KKK, you wouldn't see that. In fact, the businesses that pressured the government to enact Jim Crow laws would, very likely gain larger market shares in the long run and could stifle any attempt by businesses to do so.

Still, you did see some push back against these laws, as Stossel alluded to.

Also, simply because "Whites only" signs did not exist in public buildings (which is a very general claim; what, exactly do you mean by "public") it does not follow that private business were the ones primarily at fault for discrimination.

And again, a distinction needs to be made between institutional discrimination and incidental discrimination.

Incidental discrimination has been with us from the dawn of time and no law that man can create can EVER do away with it; to attempt to do so would be a foolish Utopian error. At best, you can hope to minimize incidental discrimination, but even that is a tricky proposition with a lot of trade-offs.

Institutional discrimination, on the other hand can be removed as a factor, in many cases.

History demonstrates that his views are incorrect in many cases.

Examples?

A simplistic examination of an event may seem to counter an idea when a closer examination actually shows that it may be ambiguous or even confirm the idea.

Williams is not simply some pundit either. He is a scholar. While that alone certainly doesn't prove or disprove anything he says, his views are worth consideration and shouldn't simply be dismissed like some mere pundit spouting cheap rhetoric.

In a perfect world, with perfectly predictable people, without the "bad" influences, he would be absolutely correct.

His argument (and the argument of most libertarian and other free market people here) is not premised on a "perfect world" where there are no "bad influences". It is premised specifically on the idea of people not being inherently good but being capable of both good and evil and ultimately being self-interested.

To miss that distinction concerning human nature is to misunderstand the argument. Like saying that Reaganomics hinges on the idea of the wealthy being "altruistic".

People are ultimately the problem, because people in general are dumb and prone to self-destructive acts.

Again, this is, essentially, not in conflict with the inherent assumptions from which these arguments stem.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes, one business that discriminates in a small town probably won't harm the quality of life of the black community. However, 10 businesses that decide to discriminate could harm the black community. So we don't allow the one, because we know what happens when many discriminate, it harms the group it is targeting, it removes 'quality of life'. Title II is a form of regulation.

Foxy, your post is rambling. There is little direction and I can't understand what point you are trying to make.

However, you have asserted this before and I will comment on it.

One business discriminating does not, in a free market, lead to 10 businesses discriminating. The theory of social causation you are propagating in regards to this issue is based purely on speculation and assertion, rather incoherent, flies against any basic understanding of economics, is rooted in the exploitation theory originally espoused by Marx and has been disproven through history and empirical research (as has been alluded to numerous times on this forum already). It is ultimately bass ackwards.

Next, you might say that the free market wouldn't create or encourage discrimination, however, it often comes down to what is the price you want to pay...

What exactly are you trying to say here? "it comes down to what is the price you want to pay..."?

The free market creates an incentive structure that strongly discourages discrimination, as has been shown through historical facts, scholarly research and explained numerous times on this forum.

Institutional discrimination can only exist in the private sector through corporatism, and that is not of the free market.

Here is the abstract from Dr. Jennifer Roback's paper "The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars," published in Journal of Economic History (1986):

The introduction of segregation laws for municipal streetcars is examined. The economics of private and public segregation is analyzed first, taking note of the particular features of the streetcar industry, followed by a discussion of the contemporary debates on streetcar segregation laws in a number of southern cities. The evidence presented suggests that segregation laws were binding constraints and not simply the codification of customary practice. Furthermore, the streetcar companies were not the initiators of segregation and sometimes actively resisted it. These findings are related to several major interpretations of the origins of segregation.​

 

[shagdrum]

Here is an older article by Economist and Scholar Thomas Sowell that makes some very good points on this issue:

Rosa Parks and history

The death of Rosa Parks has reminded us of her place in history, as the black woman whose refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white man, in accordance with the Jim Crow laws of Alabama, became the spark that ignited the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Most people do not know the rest of the story, however. Why was there racially segregated seating on public transportation in the first place? "Racism" some will say -- and there was certainly plenty of racism in the South, going back for centuries. But racially segregated seating on streetcars and buses in the South did not go back for centuries.

Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about.

It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.

It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others didn't care, that was sufficient politically, because what blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote.

The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.

These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply.

None of this resistance was based on a desire for civil rights for blacks. It was based on a fear of losing money if racial segregation caused black customers to use public transportation less often than they would have in the absence of this affront.

Just as it was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of whites to demand racial segregation through the political system to bring it about, so it was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of blacks to stop riding the streetcars, buses and trains in order to provide incentives for the owners of these transportation systems to feel the loss of money if some blacks used public transportation less than they would have otherwise.

People who decry the fact that businesses are in business "just to make money" seldom understand the implications of what they are saying. You make money by doing what other people want, not what you want.

Black people's money was just as good as white people's money, even though that was not the case when it came to votes.

Initially, segregation meant that whites could not sit in the black section of a bus any more than blacks could sit in the white section. But whites who were forced to stand when there were still empty seats in the black section objected. That's when the rule was imposed that blacks had to give up their seats to whites.

Legal sophistries by judges "interpreted" the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal treatment out of existence. Judicial activism can go in any direction.

That's when Rosa Parks came in, after more than half a century of political chicanery and judicial fraud.​

 

[shagdrum]

Here are some excerpts from "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" entry on discrimination:

Many people believe that only government intervention prevents rampant discrimination in the private sector. Economic theory predicts the opposite: market mechanisms impose inescapable penalties on profits whenever for-profit enterprises discriminate against individuals on any basis other than productivity. Though bigoted managers may hold sway for a time, in the long run the profit penalty makes profit-seeking enterprises tenacious champions of fair treatment.

To see how this works, suppose that male and female hot-dog salesmen are equally productive and that bigoted stadium concessionaires prefer to hire men. The bigger demand for male employees will raise men’s wages, meaning that the concessionaires will have to pay more to hire men than they would to hire equally productive women. The higher wages for men cause employers who insist on all-male workforces to be higher-cost producers. Unless customers are willing to pay more for a hot dog delivered by a man than by a woman, higher costs mean smaller profits.

Concessionaires interested in maximizing their profits will forgo prejudice, hire women, reduce their costs, and increase their profits. Even if all concessionaires collude in refusing to hire women, new woman-owned firms can exploit their cost advantage by selling hot dogs for less, an effective way to take away customers. Unless government steps in to protect the bigots from competition, market conditions will end up forcing firms to choose between lower profits and hiring women [discrimination]. Though it may take decades, lower costs for female labor will result in the expansion of equal-opportunity employers. This will increase the demand for female labor and increase women’s wages. Some antiwomen owners may contrive to remain in business, but competition will make their taste for unfair discrimination expensive and will ensure that less of it will occur.
​

This passage demonstrate how most statistical studies that find discrimination reach their conclusions more through assumption and speculation then through empirical verification.

...Early studies of labor force discrimination typically calculated expected pay or advancement for different groups after controlling for factors thought to affect productivity, such as schooling, hours worked, and years in the labor force. Unexplained differences were generally attributed to unfair discrimination. But as is so often the case, adjustments are limited to factors that can be measured, and the omitted variables often contained important information....​

This passage shows the difference in incentive structure in the political realm as opposed to the economic realm:

...Because official discrimination costs politicians little if the discrimination is politically acceptable, government officials unconstrained by considerations of profit can afford to turn a blind eye to the damage unfair discrimination causes. They often sanction damaging official discrimination to please politically powerful interest groups....​

Here is a section that talks about the findings of Dr. Roback's paper:

The resistance of southern streetcar companies to ordinances requiring them to segregate black passengers vividly illustrates how the market motivates businesses to avoid unfair discrimination. Before the segregation laws were enacted, most streetcar companies voluntarily segregated tobacco users, not black people. Nonsmokers of either race were free to ride where they wished, but smokers were relegated to the rear of the car or to the outside platform. The revenue gains from pleased nonsmokers apparently outweighed any losses from disgruntled smokers.

Streetcar companies refused, however, to discriminate against black people because separate cars would have reduced their profits. They resisted even after the passage of turn-of-the-century laws requiring the segregation of black people. One railroad manager complained that racial discrimination increased costs because it required the company to “haul around a good deal of empty space that is assigned to the colored people and not available to both races.” Racial discrimination also upset some paying customers. Black customers boycotted the streetcar lines and formed competing hack (horsedrawn carriage) companies, and many white customers refused to move to the white section.

In Augusta, Savannah, Atlanta, Mobile, and Jacksonville, streetcar companies responded by refusing to enforce segregation laws for as long as fifteen years after their passage. The Memphis Street Railway “contested bitterly,” and the Houston Electric Railway petitioned the Houston City Council for repeal. A black attorney leading a court battle against the laws provided an ironic measure of the strength of the streetcar companies’ resistance by publicly denying that his group “was in cahoots with the railroad lines in Jacksonville.” As pressure from the government grew, however, the cost of defiance began to outweigh the market penalty on profits. One by one, the streetcar companies succumbed, and the United States stumbled further into the infamous morass of racial segregation.

From Jennifer Roback, “The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars.” Journal of Economic History 56, no. 4 (December 1986): 893–917.
​

 

[foxpaws]

Foxy, your post is rambling. There is little direction and I can't understand what point you are trying to make.

However, you have asserted this before and I will comment on it.

One business discriminating does not, in a free market, lead to 10 businesses discriminating. The theory of social causation you are propagating in regards to this issue is based purely on speculation and assertion, rather incoherent, flies against any basic understanding of economics, is rooted in the exploitation theory originally espoused by Marx and has been disproven through history and empirical research (as has been alluded to numerous times on this forum already). It is ultimately bass ackwards.

Shag – just as one person dumping garbage into a water system does not, in ‘real life’ lead to eighty people dumping garbage into a water system. But you nonetheless regulate so not even one person can pollute, because of the damage many might cause, and the resulting lack of property rights to people downstream.

You prevent one, so you don’t end up with hundreds.

Just like with discrimination – one doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights, but since we do have a free market, you can’t say with ‘certainty’ there won’t be 10 businesses that discriminate in a small town. One won’t cause any hardship on anyone, but if 10 discriminate, that has the potential to infringe on ‘pursuit of happiness’. Just like in the pollution analogy.

The free market creates an incentive structure that strongly discourages discrimination, as has been shown through historical facts, scholarly research and explained numerous times on this forum.

Institutional discrimination can only exist in the private sector through corporatism, and that is not of the free market.

I believe history in the south would contradict your ‘historical facts’ statement. Businesses as a whole wanted discrimination, because the people they served wanted segregation. So the majority of the white community elected politicians to create laws that would continue a way of life that was ‘comfortable’ for them. Blacks remain poor and a cheap labor force, something the south thought it needed. The market ‘may’ punish those who discriminate. The market ‘may’ reward. Because it is the market, we can’t possibility know, or really predict what will happen, because of the huge amount of variables. And especially regionally. In the deep south, the historical effects of racism in many forms have created a multi-generational inequality that is deep and ingrained. If a black person works and earns money, but then finds that they cannot buy what they want or live where they want with the same money white people use, isn't their 'pursuit of happiness' rights infringed upon?

And with all your cut and paste about how ‘government’ was doing the discrimination – you need to remember that it was government at a very local level that started this – and that government very closely reflects the community it represents. If the people in local jurisdictions didn’t want discrimination, they wouldn’t have voted in men who promised it.

Shag, the voting majority in the south wanted discrimination/segregation. The laws were set up to please the voters.

You seem to think that our government is some foreign object imposed on society rather than created by society itself. The society of the south created the government it wanted…

What exactly are you trying to say here? "it comes down to what is the price you want to pay..."?

In the south, whites were willing to pay more to eat with only whites around, to ride in railroad cars with only whites, to stay at white only hotels, to watch movies with other whites. Plus whites could also restrict the income of many blacks by controlling the opportunities available to them by limiting education, with 'separate but equal,' and blocking blacks from forming their own businesses because the banks were basically controlled by wealthy whites.

There are visible and ‘invisible’ costs to segregation/discrimination. The cost you 'see' is a loss of efficiency making it more difficult to conduct business, hire the best people etc. Most of these 'seen' costs were imposed on the minority of blacks with the remainder spread out thinly across the majority of whites. Segregation probably didn't seem very 'expensive' to white consumers. And those white consumers were willing to pay the price, they did not want to have to be with blacks.

So, in the south the gains the wealthier/majority whites received by being able to keep a cheap black labor force probably came close to equaling the added costs of goods in a segregated business model.

Once again shag – if the result of many businesses discriminating in an area means people's rights would be curtailed, which it would, then you can’t let one. The market could play out just like it did in the south, where people/business owners who wanted segregation/discrimination voted in politicians who created laws that fostered that atmosphere. The only way you can make sure that there is equal opportunity is to not foster discrimination. The market may or may not... The government can ensure that opportunity remains level. Not results, just opportunity.