Fight Bigotry Without Government

How the free market undermines racism and segregation


"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.

John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.


NEXT: Days of Irritation

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In that photo he kind of looks like “The Mentalist” if you have ever seen that show.

    1. Do you mean to say that he resembles Simon Baker? If you’re going to post a frivolous, juvenile, impertinent comment, at least make logical sense (people don’t usually resemble TV shows) and research the name of the actor you’re comparing him to.

      That said: yes, he does kinda look like Simon Baker.

      1. I am in a frivolous, juvenile mood today. Yes, I meant Simon Baker, the title character.

        1. The actor who plays the title character

          1. Is that his real hair? Looks like a toop.

            1. no way. my wife nailed it the other night, Rand Paul is exactly what Justin Timberllake will look like in 20 years.

      2. And he doesn’t look like Simon Baker if I haven’t seen the show?

        1. If you have never seen the show you may have no idea to what I refer.

          1. If you have never seen the show, then he’s the swish that gets murdered in the hotel room in LA Confidential.

        2. This may be the most nitpick-y thread I’ve seen on this site yet.

      3. “If you’re going to post a frivolous, juvenile, impertinent comment, at least make logical sense (people don’t usually resemble TV shows) and research the name of the actor you’re comparing him to.”
        I think responding like that is juvenile, this is the internet not a college paper or a report that you need to turn in for work. I do not think the writing process is necessary here and calling people out for mistakes on the comments page is juvenile

  2. “Should people have the right to discriminate by race, sex, religion and other attributes? In a free society, I say yes. Let’s look at it. When I was selecting a marriage partner, I systematically discriminated against white women, Asian women and women of other ethnicities that I found less preferable. The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members. The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members. The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members.

    You say, Williams, that’s different. It’s not like public transportation, restaurants and hotel service in which Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act “prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment.” While there are many places that serve the public, it doesn’t change the fact that they are privately owned, and who is admitted, under what conditions, should be up to the owner.”

    “The Right To Discriminate”, Walter Williams: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew…..minate.htm

    1. If there is a woman out there that can play QB better than just one NFL backup, she’d have the job.

      1. I wondered how Romo got the job.

      2. If there is a woman out there that can play QB better than just one NFL backup, she’d have the job.

        My mom can play QB better than David Carr. His hair is better, though.

        1. I’m sure she never fumbled any balls and knew how to handle getting “tackled”.

    2. While there are many places that serve the public, it doesn’t change the fact that they are privately owned, and who is admitted, under what conditions, should be up to the owner.

      See: smoking bans.

      Then get back to me about how well that line of argument works.

      1. I fail to understand your post. Are you suggesting that he’d be for smoking bans?

        1. He’s indicating the depressing level of success achieved by appealing to the public’s sense that proprietorship should supersede public utility.

    3. as a citizen of a border community in arizona i whole heartedly support sb1070 on the grounds of health issues. when the citizens south of the border come across the line they still dont flush their toilet paper and continue to throw it in the waste basket.

      it stinks and i cant handle seeing asswipe in the garbage bins anymore….

  3. Racist policies in private restaurants are also evil, but they do not involve force.

    For anti-ownership zealots (read: All statist of every ilk, including right-wing statists), restaurants and other businesses that serve the public are not to be considered “private”.

    For instance, prostitutes cannot discriminate when serving the public, their bodies suddenly not belonging to them just because they decide to use them for business – THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT TITLE II leads to if taken seriously, whether you like it or not.

    1. So you are saying, in other words, that a hooker’s moneymaker is “a place of public accommodation?”

      1. That’s why we can’t legalize prostitution.

      2. Yes, but if you want associate with others there, she’ll make you pay extra.

  4. Here we go again John. Just when our would-be brain-dead masters were becoming distracted after the Rand Paul flub by turning their glazed eyes back to American Idol or Celebrity Dance or Glee or Back door sluts 9 or whatever crap people watch now, you had to be principled and attempt to stand up for yourself. I agree with you, but this hornet’s nest does not need to be stirred.

    1. Re: Drax the Destroyer,

      I agree with you, but this hornet’s nest does not need to be stirred.

      “That’s your uncle talking.” – Obi Wan Kenobi

      1. Nice nerd reference OM. I just think we have bigger, more immediate fish to fry like the looming fiscocalypse, two bullshit wars, an education system not fit for cavemen, the Federal Reserve banks reason for existing, breaking the kneecaps of incompetant members of the government, not enough hot asian women in my bordello, etc…you know shit we should take care of NOW. But hey, it’s John’s show, and I applaud him for the massive stones he’s cultivated, I just wish he would have a show centered on the injustice of the lack of hot asian women in my bordello. Come on ladies, I pay well (in Iraqi Dinar).

    2. Here here.

  5. Racist policies in private restaurants are also evil, but they do not involve force.

    Oh really? So a black person would not be forced off the property if he refused to leave?

    1. Dan T., what does the concept of property mean to you? What does it imply to you?

      1. Property is when an individual or group owns something. But ownership does not always mean that the owner has full right to do whatever he wants with that property.

        What gets me is that nobody is saying that you should be forced to have people you don’t want on your private property. But it’s absurd to declare that a store or other business that is open to the public is “private” in any real sense of the word.

        Rand Paul’s problem is not that he is racist but rather that he thinks the right to mistreat people is more important than the right not to be mistreated.

        He’s free to think that, but don’t be surprised when he is not elected.

        1. Dan. First, define private. Second, what do you think of Farrahkan chasing reporters off the public sidewalk in front of his house?

          1. All in all it’s pretty amusing when they’re also trying to chase the Secret Service away.

        2. If I place my hand on your wallet do you have a right to take my hand off of your wallet? Is this the initiation of force if you must physically take my hand off because I refuse to take it off of my own volition?

          1. I didn’t say you couldn’t use force to remove a tresspasser from your property…but don’t deny that you are still using force.

            1. Re: Dan,

              I didn’t say you couldn’t use force to remove a tresspasser from your property…but don’t deny that you are still using force.

              You’re again conflating two entirely different things. Discrimination is NOT aggression, nor is it defending your property.

            2. If you don’t leave my property when I tell you to, you have initiated force, not me when I throw you out.

              1. Not according to Stossel…did you read the article, Nick you complete cretin?

                n 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.

                “Sit-ins”- the first step in changing a rancid culture. Violation of private property IS THE FIRST STEP!

                1. I’m a cretin because I think people should be allowed to remove trespassers from private property? The black students who did those sit-ins knew what they were doing. I applaud them for their civil disobedience in that it did change the culture and it was a nice F U to the government.

                  Convince me that Jim Crow LAWS weren’t the reason Woolworth’s called the cops and that it was solely because Woolworth’s had a policy of not serving blacks. Oh wait, Woolworth’s did allow blacks in their stores to buy their goods but weren’t allowed to sit at the lunch counters because it was against the LAW!

                  1. No, you’re a cretin because you can’t read. I agree with your stance on private property,

                2. I’m for sit ins.

                  They confront the business in question with the ugliness of their policy, and in many cases, force them to change said policy rather than become aggressive and throw out the activists.

                  1. aNONy,

                    How would you react if I came to your home, sat in it and refused to leave?

              2. This. Trespassing is initiation of force.

        3. Re: DanT,

          But ownership does not always mean that the owner has full right to do whatever he wants with that property.

          Sure. For instance, you do not always have a right to eat all the potato chips from the bag you just BOUGHT. Right?

          Your fuzzy logic is really astounding to read, Dan – like watching a very serious wreck on the street. OF COURSE “Ownership” MEANS DOING WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH YOUR PROPERTY, nucklehead! If NOT, then you would not OWN IT, would you?

          Rand Paul’s problem is not that he is racist but rather that he thinks the right to mistreat people is more important than the right not to be mistreated.

          You’re equivocating – yet again. “Discriminating” is not the same as “Mistreating”; the second term implies aggression.

          1. OF COURSE “Ownership” MEANS DOING WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH YOUR PROPERTY, nucklehead! If NOT, then you would not OWN IT, would you?

            Not true. A person can own a hammer but that does not mean they are free to use it to bash somebody’s car windows, for example.

            1. Re: Dan,

              Not true. A person can own a hammer but that does not mean they are free to use it to bash somebody’s car windows, for example.

              That’s because that person has no right to infringe on other people’s property, Dan – that has NOTHING to do with the right to use your property as you see fit. If I use MY HAMMER to break MY WINDOWS, that’s my business. And if I use my hammer to fix the roofs of only black people, that should be MY BUSINESS also, not yours.

              1. Fair enough, but once you choose to open up the use of your property to the public, then you have to agree to the public’s rules.

                1. “the public’s rules.

                  And what are those? A majority of the human race lives in China. Should we all follow the mores of China?

                2. But if you explicitly exclude large groups of people from your property, it is clearly not open to the public.

                3. What makes a business “open to the public?” The door on my house is often unlocked, and there are plenty of people that I won’t shoot if they walk through it, but that doesn’t mean that I give up the right to deny anybody entry. Anytime you enter a door, you should be mindful that somebody might ask you to leave.

                4. Wrong. If I own something I should have the right to open my property to only SOME of the public.

                  You might make the case that I should have to follow a safety regulations for a space that I’ve made public, but choosing which parts of the public I allow on my property has nothing to do with safety.

              2. Dan T. is just another fucking idiot.

            2. Yes they are.

              And before you respond, go look up the difference between “civil” and “criminal”… and it wouldn’t hurt for you to gain a healthy understanding of “torts”, too.

            3. The one with the big capital letter R written on the toe goes on your right foot. The one with the L goes on your left. And remember to keep your feet far enough apart when you go to tie the laces, sweetie.

          2. Old Mexican,

            Come over to my house later for a cup of coffee. You might get raped, as I like to put Rohypnol in my guests coffee then take them roughly from behind when they are passed out, but surely you would feel that I have the right to take you from behind without consent on MY PROPERTY.

            P.S. I OWN the property, which I’m sure would make your sore a-hole feel much better.

            1. His body is not your property, dipshit, so doing that without his consent is assault and rape.

              1. Why is it so goddam hard for them to understand this?

                1. That was aimed at Jordan, BTW

                2. When your political philosophy is based on emotion, critical thinking tends to be a foreign concept, I guess.

                  1. Jordan,

                    SO if I use physical force to remove him from my property without his consent, that is assault?

                    You fucking moron.

                    1. No, because by trespassing, he initiated force against you, fuckwit.

                    2. If you invited him in only to assault him you are initiating force against a guest.

                      If you invite him in and then at any time you want him to leave and he does not, he is then initiating force against you/your property.

                      If he just walked in and then you physically throw him out or even shoot him in some correct-thinking states, he has initiated force against your property giving you cause to eject him.

                      Really, it’s not difficult to determine who first initiated force. Give me some more easy scenarios and we don’t even need a jury to figure it out.

                    3. FWIW, the British government is increasingly getting this wrong these days.

                    4. The force to remove him is justified, because he first initiated force by refusing to leave.

                3. Liberals are fucking stupid…always have been always will be!

                  1. What about liberals who become libertarians? What about the fact that the word “liberal” used to have a meaning closer to “libertarian”? You can say that modern American liberalism is stupid, but even then you should provide some kind of support for your claim.

        4. “Rand Paul’s problem is not that he is racist but rather that he thinks the right to mistreat people is more important than the right not to be mistreated.”

          Ah there it is. The deus ex emotion of the modern progressive. Everyone has to be nice to each other.

          What qualifies as mistreatment? Being told kindly to leave? Being threatened with force like any homeowner could do to an unwanted guest (well not really considering all the bullshit lawsuits where crooks have sued their victims)? I’ve literally been thrown out of bars for not being a scary ass biker. Frankly, they discriminated against me. What if all the racist bars, just turned into “biker” bars and discriminated based on a person’s dress code…and surly demeanor, sawed-off shotgun, and haggard sun-bleached bitch in tote? What if all bars just became exclusive clubs? Oh, they won’t because restricting access is one of the easiest ways to reduce the number of customers you serve. But why shouldn’t they have the right to be dumb fucks? You certainly think you do.

          The modern problem here is not racism, but that some minorities (Women, Gays, etc.) can’t discriminate against whomever they please (Ugly fat guys, …Straight ugly fat guys) in a place of so-called public accommodation.

          1. we are able to discriminate on the basis of bevavoir but not attributes;although, numerous minority only clubs exists- but so what.
            What is happening here is that white people as a class are losing the privilage to tell people to go pound and. In other words minorities get to tell you to go #### ourselves, and the government backs that- the government allowing white people to do that is one thing, but not the other way

          2. I’m calling the ACLU!

        5. There is no right not to be mistreated. If I say “Dan T, you are a fucking retard”, I am possibly mistreating you (or possibly just describing reality as it is). There is no right you can have that can prevent me from saying that. That is not how rights work. You have rights to do things. You do not have rights to prevent other people from doing things through use of government power.

        6. “nobody is saying that you should be forced to have people you don’t want on your private property”

          Yes you are!

        7. Private property is private property or it’s not.

          To you property is private until the government decides it shouldn’t be.

          That’s not private property.

    2. They don’t involve the initiation of force. When you are on someone else’s property and refuse to leave, it’s called tresspassing. It’s ok for the police to remove you then.

      1. The police removing a person sounds like force to me.

        Besides, shouldn’t the police not need to worry about removing tresspassers when that property is “private”, and thus not of the police’s concern?

        1. Enforcing property rights is a function of the police. Your sex life is “private”, which means you get to control it. If you get raped, the police step in to catch the criminal.

        2. No, a legitimate function of gov’t is to enforce property rights. That includes removing trespassers.

          1. And ensuring Civil Rights is also a legitmate function of the government.

            Sometimes interests clash, and the government has to make a decision one way or another.

            1. Define “Civil Right”.

            2. There is no clash here. If I want someone off MY property and they refuse to leave, I or the police may physically escort them off. No one has a civil right to be on my property without my permission.

            3. There is no right to be on somebody else’s property.

            4. There is no civil right to be on someone else’s property.

            5. When Civil rights involves taking someone else’s rights it is not a legitimate role of the federal government.

        3. I don’t understand why people bother talking to you, when it’s clear that you’re operating on a completely different plane of existence than anyone who isn’t a totalitarian socialist of some sort. It’s just fucking pointless, like trying to argue pro-life points with someone who thinks the right to life is only obtained at age 18.

    3. Re: DanT,

      Oh really? So a black person would not be forced off the property if he refused to leave?

      Check the word “Tresspassing” in the dictionary, so you can become more enlightened on the subject . . . Dan.

      1. Tresspassing should not be law, after all the government has no right to make laws regarding private property.

        1. Re: DanT,

          Tresspassing should not be law, after all the government has no right to make laws regarding private property.

          I love your non sequiturs – who said anything about law?

          1. Stossel is objecting to the laws that disallow racial discrimination.

            Try to pay attention here, Old Mex.

            1. Re: Dan,

              Stossel is objecting to the laws that disallow racial discrimination.

              Aw, what a great cop-out. I try to keep my comments within the context of the conversation.

              1. That’s what we’re talking about, right…whether or not private property should fall under the realm of government regulation?

                1. Re: Dan,

                  That’s what we’re talking about, right…whether or not private property should fall under the realm of government regulation?

                  No, we were talking about something else, but if you want to talk about THAT, just say “OK, but what about . . .?”

                  Regarding that subject you indicated, Government is anathema to property rights, so talking about government regulating property rights is like talking about rapists overseeing a school for girls.

                  What the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should have limited itself to doing was to repeal laws that violated people’s freedoms. That’s it, and that is what Rand Paul is talking about. Instead, it went beyond that and imposed limitations on people’s Freedom of Association, just because they are involved in commercial activities. That is immoral.

                  1. Instead, it went beyond that and imposed limitations on people’s Freedom of Association, just because they are involved in commercial activities. That is immoral.

                    But it is also immoral to discriminate against people based on their race. We as a society have decided that more harm is done by racial discrimination than by forcing business owners to serve people whose skin color they don’t like.

                    Seems like a good trade-off to me.

                    1. Re: DanT,

                      But it is also immoral to discriminate against people based on their race.

                      Why? What could possibly make that immoral?

                      We as a society have decided that more harm is done by racial discrimination than by forcing business owners to serve people whose skin color they don’t like.

                      What’s with this “WE” business, Kimosabe? “WE” haven’t decided anything – the law was passed by a few criminals who fancied themselves “representatives of the people”. They certainly were NOT Society.

                    2. So, both the KKK and the NAACP are inherently immoral organizations, then?

                    3. Dan – Many think it is “immoral” to have extra-marital relations, non-heterosexual intercourse, smoke cannabis, and deny Christ as savior.

                      Is that justification for the government to step in, Dan?

                    4. I did not have sexual relations with that man, Joe Sestak.

                    5. So our gov’t is in the business of legislating morality?

                      We’re all screwed.

            2. Yes, the government can theoretically accomplish good, but that is not justification for the government to be active in such a large scope as to deny people their basic rights.

            3. You have it backwards, John Stossel is against laws which enforce discrimination.

        2. Tresspassing should not be law, after all the government has no right to make laws regarding private property.

          Fucking A, the stupid just belches forth like a broken oil pipe on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, doesn’t it?

          Your “reasoning” is so pathetically lame it makes me want to spit. First, “government” does not have a “right” to do anything. Government has certain POWERS given to it by the people who constituted that government. Second, who ever said the government has no power to pass any law “regarding” private property? One of the primary purposes for which governments are constituted among men (to use the term in the quaint manner of the founders of our government) is to protect – wait for it – the rights of PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS.

          So of course government legitimately has the power to enact and enforce laws forbidding trespassing, because those laws serve only to protect the private property rights of the property owner – notably, what is likely the single most important property right – the right to exclude others.

          The law we’re talking about here INFRINGES upon the rights of a private property owner by requiring him to allow anyone on his property, whether he wants that person there or not.

          And your whole argument that a private business becomes an entirely public accomodation merely by opening as a business is false and never has been supported by law or fact.

        3. WHAT?!?!?! That is the entire purpose of government, to protect the rights of private property owners so that people don’t just prey upon the weak who are entitled to what they own. The government enforces anti theft laws to protect property. The government enforces anti rape laws to protect one’s person, which is also their property. You have a nonsensical view of the purpose of government.

        4. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

          Ring any bells, Dan? The general phrasing came from John Locke’s “Two Treastises”, that the legitimate role of any government was to protect “natural rights”, which included “the right to life, liberty, and the ownership of property.” In the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, someone (can’t remember who–Madison?) objected that “ownership of property” was too narrow a phrase, so Jefferson expanded it.

          You can chose to accept that notion or not; but in a nutshell, the one and only purpose of government is to protect rights to life, liberty, and ownership of property. Which would include, in any reasonable analysis, laws regarding private property.

      2. Actually, it would be the WHITE people forced off the proterty, since the store owner is Black.

    4. Not that a person like Dan T. could understand this, but here goes.

      A person who is trespassing is the one initiating force, not the property owner who is removing said individual. This is true even if the owner is a racist prick.

    5. Don.T feed the Trooooooooollll1!!!

  6. Chipping away at the sphere of privacy is one reason homosexuals have to struggle so much for their rights. Opponents of same sex marriage would not fight as hard if they didn’t have to fear that the courts would make their churches perform any newly legalized marriages.

    1. That is a completely unfounded fear and no basis to deny gays the same rights everyone else has to enter a marriage contract.

      1. Um, thanks to a recent court ruling, it is now illegal in NJ for a church to refuse to hold a same sex union ceremony in it’s building. Of course, it is still illegal to have a same sex marriage in NJ at a public court house or town hall. NJ legalized only unions, not same sex marriages.

        1. But I bet any church could give up its tax-exempt status and then be free to perform or not perform any ceremonies they wish.

          1. Tax-exempt status has nothing to do with it. For-profit businesses face even stricter anti-discrimination standards.

            1. So what happens if a church does refuse to perform a same-sex union in New Jersey? Just wondering.

              1. The betrothed get to play “priest and altar boy” with the minister.

            2. And, mark my word, if you take away their tax exemption the likes of Dan will claim they can be forced to marry gays because the Central State has the power to regulate businesses.

              Everything leads to the same conclusion, or have you not noticed this with Danny boy?

          2. That’s not correct. Private photographers, for example, are not allowed to not perform gay wedding gigs in some states.

            1. Really? That’s hard to believe.

              1. Oh, believe it, motherfucker.


                1. Not being allowed to discriminate of basis of sexual orientation is not the same as being “not allowed to not perform gay wedding gigs”.

                  1. Jesus christ, now you’re sounding like Baghdad Bob. “The infidels are not in our city!”

                    He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.

                  2. Distinction/difference

                    1. Wedding photographers can turn down gay customers, they just cannot turn them down because they are gay.

                      Hope that clears it up.

                    2. Ah, right. So all they need to do is come up with some pretense as to why they’re turning the job down and lie.

                      So you like laws that encourage people to be dishonest.

                      Yup, that clears it up. Thanks!

                    3. “So you like laws that encourage people to be dishonest.”

                      Sounds like “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military!

                    4. What the hell is the difference? Intent? How do you prove it one way or the other, authoritarian?

                    5. my wedding photog was gayer than a three dollar bill and a petite tyrant.
                      your point clears nothing up. if they’re free to decline gay weddings for any reason but gayness, they’re not free because of that but.

                    6. Dan I know you think any usurpation of individual rights by the government is a great thing, but sometimes the government may take away peoples’ rights not to your liking.

                      How do you like laws which restrict an employers right to fire someone for not doing their job.. when it’s assist in performing an abortion?

        2. Nonsense and you know it.

          If a religious organization rents out its property TO ALL regardless of denomination or lack thereof, then it has to rent to gay couples as well.

          Find me a church which allows anyone and everyone to get married on its property and I’ll show you a business.

          1. So, if a church discriminates against Muslims AND gays, that’s fine. If it’s just gays, then not. Is that your final answer, or do you want to rethink that one?

      2. I think we should legalize same sex marriage and let each property owner decide whether or not to host the ceremonies.

        1. Wrong way. We should not “legalize” gay marriage. We should get government out of the marriage business. The ONLY government involvement should be SCOTUS disallowing state and local government from barring gays from marrying.

          Barring state governments from doing something is no t the same as legalizing it. It shouldn’t be a legal v non-legal issue, but an issue of individual freedom not to be fucked with by government in any fashion.
          Telling the

          1. The constitution doesn’t grant the individual the right to a union with anyone, and it doesn’t grant the congress powers to deal with it either. Whether a state can allow gay marriage would depend on each state’s constitution.

            1. The Constitution does not “grant” rights to anybody. It “grants” power to the Government.


      3. It is a well-founded fear based on past instances where the government has expanded well beyond their initial purpose. (Note: I think gay marriage s/b legal, but that is the one anti-GM argument I find plausible.)

        Some people here are old enough to remember when Social Security cards had a line about how they were not to be used for indentification purposes.

        1. (Note: I think gay marriage s/b legal, but that is the one anti-GM argument I find plausible.)

          Not gay, BP. NTTATWWT Anti-GM indeed! Hmmph!

    2. This is why the government should only consider individuals, and not couples or families.

      The government giving tax breaks to couples and families creates a protected social class – that’s what the gay marriage thing is about.

      There should only be records kept for who’s married to who for contract and will purposes, and limits of two people having a civil union to keep groups of people from taking advantage of the system when one of them dies.

      This completely removes the gay marriage problem because whether a couple had a civil union or not would only affect their ability to leave things to each other in their wills, and Christian, etc marriages would still hold their same significance.

      Government intervention is what screwed it up in the first place.

      1. There should be no tax breaks, period. Each individual should pay an equal rate. Tax incentives skew the market.

        Individuals should be able to determine who will inherit what in their wills, regardless of marital or relative status.

  7. I don’t need to read this article to know Stossel is a racist. Just look at that mustache!

    1. That is facial-hair profiling!!!

    2. And certainly male chauvinist 😉

    3. Magnum PI

      Had mustache!
      Had black friend
      Worked in Obama’s home state.
      was awesome!

      Your lies are lying lies!!

      1. Magnum PI did not work in Kenya!

    4. Racist or not, he can’t discriminate against anyone who asks for a mustache ride.

  8. I mentioned this in another thread, but is the ban on midgets playing in MLB legal? ‘Cause if it isn’t, I got an automatic walk machine planned.

      1. Yes, I know about that. MLB tossed him out. Can’t do that now, I bet.

        1. Well, I think there is a minimum height requirement now.

          Which is discriminatory.

          1. Wasn’t there a guy who played SS or 2B for the Royals in the 1970’s who was 5’2″? not a midget, certainly, but I’m sure he got more than his share of walks.

            1. I must have been thinking of Freddie Patek.

          2. It sure is. I’m first going to get rich suing MLB, then I’m going to become GM for a team with a low payroll and hire several very short people.

            If you think about it, you might not have to be that short to be a regular walk candidate. If that’s true, it might be possible to get somebody with at least a little speed, which would mean no necessity for a pinch runner.

            The other option would be to have everyone but the pitcher be short. Fifty forced runs in the first inning would become common.

            1. I’m going to become GM

              It’s a tall order to fill, Pro’L Dib.

              1. If Obama can do it, so can I.

                1. If Obama can do it, so can I.

                  Obama wouldn’t last 10 seconds in my OR, Pro’L Dib. The dumb shit would have killed someone after he figured out he can’t heal by touch.

                  1. Obama finds your lack of faith disturbing.

                  2. touching can be very healing

  9. The ‘free market’ had plenty of time to show how it dealt with racism–and the verdict was it didn’t. Maybe John Stossel is too young to remember–but the government had to control discrimination because ‘free enterprise’ couldn’t (or wouldn’t). Just like issues of child labor before.

    Don’t worry John, you’re not going to lose your job at FOX, because they all think like you–and anyone’s crazy to suggest as much.


    1. The ‘free market’ had plenty of time to show how it dealt with racism–and the verdict was it didn’t.

      It didn’t because there were laws against desegregating businesses. Google “Jim Crow” sometime.

      1. But of course, the very people who made up the market in those areas were the ones voting for the leaders who passed the Jim Crow laws.

        1. Dan, communities are not monoliths. In a free market, you get to have integrated businesses as part of the mix even if only a handful of business owners are tolerant. When you leave it up to the government, you get total segregation until the majority of people finally believe in integration.

        2. Democrats

        3. Since when is the political process part of the market?

        4. A voting booth is not a marketplace. In a free market, I bear the consequences of my bad decisions. In the voting booth, I can vote to have the government rob my neighbor to pay for my bad decisions. If I do this often enough, eventually I may see the error of my ways, but probably not.

          Bastiat’s concept of “what is seen and what is unseen,” goes a long way toward explaining why this is so.

        5. Which is precisely the reason we shouldn’t grant the people through their elected representatives the power to dictate what we can or can not do with our bodies, lives and property. Of course, you would argue that we should grant them the power to dictate “good” and “moral” behaviors, but not the bad things. And you, I would guess, would be the arbiter of what is good and moral.

        6. What was the point of Jim Crow if all the businesses were going to do it anyway? Your assumptions don’t make sense, Dan, to the shock of all here, I’m sure.

        1. That + 1 is for Dean. Dan and I were commenting at about the same time.

      2. If a restaurant owner loses some of his white clientele because those whites object to the fact that he serves blacks then what do you think he’s going to do? Hang on to his principles and a losing business model or do what brings him more business?

        This is what you get when the bottom line counts for more than morality.

        1. You’re honestly putting forth the proposition that in this day and age, white people leave restaurants in droves because they don’t like the fact that the restaurants also serve black people?

          So how do all these restaurants remain open these days without kicking out all the black people?

          And if white people don’t eat there, how would the owner know he’s losing their business?

          And yes, there are plenty of intelligent restaurant owners who, even if they got a complaint from some white person about blacks eating there, would simply chalk it up to that person being an idiot racist and continue on with his business as usual.

          1. You’re honestly putting forth the proposition that in this day and age, white people leave restaurants in droves because they don’t like the fact that the restaurants also serve black people?

            Happens all the time in Ohio. Once a restaurant gets a majority of regular patrons that are black, the whites stop eating there. I don’t have a problem with it, but your question is really a silly one.

            So how do all these restaurants remain open these days without kicking out all the black people?

            Kicking out the blacks is not an option, so this is a moot decision tree. A restaurant stays open the only way it knows how – prices vs. profits.

            1. If the owner isn’t racist, a black person’s money is as good as a white person’s money.

              Diner Owner: “Hey guys, all those white guys are apparently racist schmucks. Invite all your friends to come with you next week, and I may come up with some group specials…”

            2. That’s terrible! We should bus white restaurant patrons to businesses predominantly patronized by blacks to rectify this social injustice.

            3. Jacob, I don’t believe you. I have lived in Virginia, California, Kansas, Kentucky and Arizona. Never have I ever met anyone who felt he or she was too good to eat in the presence of black people.

              If such people exist — and I have to assume that somewhere such people do in a country of 300 million — then they are a statistically insignificant minority. For you to suggest that this is common in Ohio — even in the confederate-flag loving, former-steel-belt section of Ohio — is laughable.

              1. Me live many places. Me never see racism.

                Me know that mean no racism around!

                No racism! Is made up! Not happen!

                Thing called “white flight” is lies! Suburbs of Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, DC, Minneapolis, St. Louis, all mostly white because they have no sun in sky there.

                Lies! Lies! Lies! White flight not happen!

                1. Oh hey, it’s you again! Who moved your rock?

              2. Same here… I’ve lived all over the country, and I’ve traveled all over the world… And I just don’t see that kind of behavior anywhere. Yes, this is anecdotal, but get outside of America for a second – people in Southeast Asia are REMARKABLY racist… Far more-so than anyone I’ve ever met in the United States. The Chinese hate the Malays who hate the Indonesians who hate people from the Philippines, etc. etc.

                And yet even then, in societies that are much more overtly racist, and which have no real consequences for being so, people still get together over food.

        2. Well, since racism is (I’m told) alive and well in the US today, then those racists who don’t want to eat with Blacks are ALREADY not eating at the restaurant. I don’t think too many places are going out of business due to a lack of racist White customers.

        3. Not if the increased business from minorities offsets the lost white business. Also, if the business owner offers a superior product, then the racists who leave may well come back to consume said product. But really none of this matters as the property owner should be able to do what he or she wants with the property, regardless of what you think the optimal outcome is.

          1. What if it’s being rented or otherwise not “owned”? Same rules apply?

            1. If the space is being rented then the policy should be addressed in the lease, if the property owner cares. If not, IANAL but I believe the rights of exclusion fall to the lessee. That’s the thing about private property, there is always someone to make those decisions.

          2. if the business owner offers a superior product, then the racists who leave may well come back to consume said product.

            Key point here.
            The local joint with the famous barbaeque sauce is going to hang onto their white redneck customers even if the owner and every single employee is black.

            Probably one of the bigger drivers in racial integration has been white redneck addiction to chili and roasted pig.

        4. I had in mind the rail service mentioned in the article. What if they flouted Jim Crow and served blacks anyway? If “concerned citizens” in the white community organized a boycott of that company how long would the train company have held out?

          My wider point is that minorities being (of course) smaller have less purchasing power and could easily be acted against in the free market.

          If I owned a restaurant in a predominantly white area I could very easily have a “no blacks” policy. Who would care? I would lose very little business because there aren’t many blacks. Some white customers won’t give a shit and enough of the rest will say they do…but “whaddya gonna do?” they’ll say.

          1. You’re still missing the point. They could not just have “flouted Jim Crow” because it was the law. They weren’t worried about boycotts, they were worried about the racist governments coming down on them.

            But you seem to believe that all white people are inherently racist and that it is only the law that keeps that racism in check, so there is obviously no reasoning with you.

            1. Well, I did say *enough* not all. In the Jim Crow south, enough whites didn’t give enough of a shit to support politicians who would repeal those laws – citation enclosed for an example:

              And what about extreme examples? Like a privately run hospital or emergency medical ambulance company? Do they have a right to deny emergency care to certain people if they don’t want to?

              1. I think the broader question underlying this is: Does the majority have a right to turn a minority into second-class citizens?

                The problem with libertarianism is that it willfully forgets that we are not considering a voluntary act between two equal parties occurring in a vacuum but the interaction between two groups. Tribalism exists, like it or not, even in “enlightened” Europe where xenophobic politicians are making gains in every new election. People really are beginning to move beyond it, but it will take time.

                Now, I realize that progressivism has it’s own share of responsibility in encouraging modern tribalism. What had started off as an affirmation that the rule of law applied to everyone has turned into to the government doling out favors and making special rules for some and not others. Maybe, if we’ve all learned that legally institutionalized discrimination is bad no matter who is the victim then Title II can be dropped. I’m not so sure the lesson has been learned.

              2. Go try to find an emergency room that accepts no government money. I dare you. Ditto EMS services.

          2. Well the big problem was white vigilates firebombing businesses that served blacks. Which the local police refused to do anything about.

            So the real issue was the failure of the local cops to protect businesses that refused to discriminate. That’s why some argue that the only other option was a federal takeover of local law enforcement.

            On the flip side, I argue that white customers quietly avoiding minority busineses is probably more damaging than white businesses discriminating against black customers.

          3. You’re incorrectly comparing the free market to perfection (which, incidentally, government intrusion did NOT accomplish).

            The free market does not completely prevent racism–what it DOES do is put pressure on people to move towards integration. Can people resist that pressure? Sure, but that pressure is still there, and over time that pressure will make society move towards integration. As society moves the pressure naturally increases.

            This particular part of the 1964 Act accomplished the more or less the same thing, but it did it through government force. That force today is being used to infringe on people’s rights in other domains. Why use force when you can do things nicely?

            1. Where is it written that the market rewards integration? That certainly wasn’t the case in 1964 in the South.

              You may argue that it’s no longer the case now… but you still have to justify the extra years or decades of legal discrimination and explain why that’s “nicer” than the alternative.

              1. Tony, how many times must it be pointed out that in 1964 in the South the discrimination was systematized and enforced through the rule of law, therefore it had nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed here? Remember that what we are saying is that the government has no authority to interfere with the association of two people, which Jim Crow laws clearly were doing. In other words, your argument is precisely ours, that the use of government to enforce a certain association policy is likely to end up being used in a discriminatory and dictatorial fashion, which in the South it certainly was. You’re advocating the same thing as the Jim Crow supporters, Tony! You want the government to enforce associations you deem correct. The fact that you perceive yourself as being more culturally enlightened than your average redneck does not change the fact that your aims are similar.

                Moreover, how many more times must it be emphasized that the end of segregation in that region of the country was in progress due to the principled activism of citizens, activism, I might add, that was for some time investigated and harassed as hateful fearmongering by the federal government? Those activists and their supporters were also terrorized by bigots, which the government authorities, those charged with defending their persons and property, ignored or at times actively supported. Again, a failure of the government to do its proper job within society, not in any way a market failure.

                The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not some manna from heaven given by an enlightened Lyndon Johnson. For him it was a political maneuver, nothing more. Go back and actually read about the history of the civil rights movement sometime.

                By the way, here’s an enlightened bit of racial commentary, courtesy of the great liberator, Lyndon:

                “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.”

        5. umm, a smart business owner would notice this and open up a new restaurant that would serve those blacks?!?!

      3. tadcf should re-read the part about Mobile, AL’s Mobile Light and Railroad Company. It was on page #2 so I can understand how tadcf missed it.

    2. Re: tadcf,

      The ‘free market’ had plenty of time to show how it dealt with racism–and the verdict was it didn’t.

      The existence of Jim Crow laws expressively forbidding businesses from serving both whites and blacks indicates your reasoning is flawed – or that you’re just lying through your teeth.

      1. Dude, you need to change your name to Retarded Mexican.

        How many white business owners protested against the Jim Crow laws based on free-market ideology? How many supported candidates that put these policies in place?

        I agree with what Rand Paul said, but you take it to beyond stupid. Such a tragedy that you made it past ‘Young Mexican’.

        1. The absence of a free market is not an indictment of the free market (unless you’re a socialist, but then everything is an indictment of the free market).

        2. How many white business owners protested against the Jim Crow laws based on free-market ideology?

          Actually lots. Most of the major chain stores wanted to integrate.

          And one of the first companies to resist segregation was the train companies not wanting to segregate passenger cars. I think there was a court case referenced on here about that recently.

        3. Re: Timmy Roid,

          Many businesses do not like taxation either, but that does not mean the “market failed to stop taxation.”

    3. You know, it’s almost like tadcf didn’t even read the part of the article that addressed his argument pretty directly. But then of course, because it didn’t match his ideas, that part didn’t exist.

    4. Actually, that would be the gov’t not respecting individual rights that caused the problem. Just because a majority of the people want it, doesn’t make it right.

      This is not a failure of the free market, it is a failure of the gov’t to protect individual rights against the collective. Whether or not that collective is racist, the principle remains the same.

    5. It was the government that was discriminating.

      Anyway you can’t have it both ways. Consider employers. If some employers were hiring (or not hiring rather) according to some racist tendency then the labor market for the discriminated against group would be depressed and wages would be lower. For the free market not to fix this situation you have to believe all employers would deliberately pay higher wages so they could indulge their racism.

      Ok so that a stupid and I don’t think even you would assert that.

      So now consider in a hypothetical semi racist hiring environment the businesses with non racist hiring policies have lower overhead and can therefore command greater market share.

      Now guess what? The businesses with racist hiring policies will have to compete or continue to lose share and eventually go out of business.

      Would you suggest someone would go out of business to indulge their racism? Some might. Most won’t.

      The free market does fix it.

      Instead with government intervention everyone knows that minorities have lower hiring standards, bars of entry, and admission standards. You know this when you go to a minority doctor. The reality is they have lower standards by law.


      We have replaced perceived inferiority with de jure, real inferiority.


  10. Stossel comes off as apologetic for southern governments’ Jim Crow laws. Is that an example of white guilt?

    1. Umm… He said Jim Crow was “evil”. Did you read the article?

      1. Right, racism is evil and he doesn’t agree with it. Like we need him to clarify repeatedly what his personal opinion is on racism in order to judge the merits of fed intrusion of private business practices.

        I thought Stossel suffered from white guilt, guess I got the wrong vibe.

        1. He was called racist, so saying he isn’t is pretty important to his argument. A racist person saying private business owners should be allowed to discriminate wouldn’t get much play. But a person who is not racist and agrees the government should not be racist, yet saying it is OK for private citizens and their businesses to be racist means something.

          1. Responding to “You are a racist!” is a waste of time because it neither a) addresses the meat of the issue, nor b) appeases/convinces his critics.

            He might as well have said, “I’m rubber, you’re glue.”

            1. Sometimes making your position crystal clear to your core audience is as important or even more important than convincing those that will never agree with you because they profit from the disagreement anyway. And the middle portion that chooses on the issues rather than Team also needs to know so they can make the educated decision.

              And not backing down has it’s merits as well, especially in his business.

    2. maybe. so what? did i do something wrong?

  11. Maybe tadcf = Virginia, since neither one has much reading comprehension or retention.

    1. Not necessarily. A common liberal tactic is to use the “You either believe like I do, or you’re a ______,” line of reasoning. (You can insert “racist”, “homophobe”, etc., depending on the context.)

  12. Don’t be his porn.

    1. Whatever this means, it’s a good slogan.

      1. Just don’t apply it too broadly or your social life will suffer, Warty.

        1. Oh, sweet Dagny. You’re my porn.

        2. “Vote Warty 2010: He’ll be your pron!”

      2. Dan T. is just here to masturbate to the annoyance he creates by being a bad faith posting twat. His unwelcome presence imposes no responsibility on us to play along.

        Don’t be his porn.

  13. This is about rights that supposedly exist in the ether, and rights actually enjoyed in practice.

    The title at issue is enforced under interstate commerce. Okay, it’s a given that hardcore libertarians don’t accept a broad interpretation of IC. Regardless, that’s how it’s justified in the real world.

    But since we’re putting reality and case law aside, we can go into the deeper justification. There are two conflicting liberties here: that of business owners to admit whoever they want, and that of people not to be systematically discriminated against in society and commerce. One of these is more important to protect than the other, and doing so leads to a freer and more equal society. It’s a good thing, and if the constitution doesn’t permit it, it is flawed. (Thankfully, according to case law, it does.) Property may be private, but it’s not sovereign. You should have to abide by your community’s standards if you want the privilege of engaging in commerce within that community.

    1. And what if your community standards involve bigotry?

      1. Don’t ask questions they can’t answer.

      2. In the case of systematic discrimination, the relevant community is the nation.

        1. Why is the nation the relevant community? Because it’s helpful to your argument? Because that’s what we’ve done in the real world, and therefore beyond reproach? Are you appealing to principle, or should we just make the rules up as we go along?

          1. Life is about making it up as we go along.

            Racial apartheid is arguably a national issue. Local communities were obviously not getting it together.

        2. So you’re saying that slavery was ok back when the entire world was doing it?

          1. That’s the hilarious undercurrent to basically all of Tony’s arguments!

            So long as something has a majority of people behind it – regardless of how evil, how vile and how illiberal – it’s the “right” thing for everybody.

            It’d always convenient for him in the instances where the so-called “majority” of people support things he considers good. And of course the way “the majority” is always defined is by taking a very specific population that gets him to the opinion he’s looking for.

            But he’s forced to overlook and ignore his own reasoning when the majority of the world doesn’t support things he likes.

            For instance, the majority of America still seems to want to disallow gay people a lot of basic rights… According to Tony, that then, is the correct state of law.

        3. What we have is systematic discrimination by law. Title 2 is part of that.

    2. it’s a given that hardcore libertarians don’t accept a broad interpretation of IC.

      Just as the framers of the Constitution didn’t, as indicated by some of their contemporaneous writings.

      As far as “case law” establishing something – Supreme Court case law also validated the entire system of “separate but equal” that directly led to the Jim Crow laws. See Plessy v. Ferguson.

      The Court does, sometimes, get its case law wrong. Dred Scott, anyone?

      The fact that “case law” says something is constitutional does not mean that case law was a correct interpretation of the Constitution. It means only that we have to live with it until a court more faithful to the original understanding of the Constitution and fundamental principles of federalism and sovereignty has an opportunity to revisit the issue – e.g., Brown v. Board of Ed.

      1. An “interpretation”, by definintion, cannot be “correct” or “incorrect”.

        1. Of course it can, you fucking idiot.

          1. No. An interpretation is subjective. Again by definintion.

            Correctness implies an objective standard.


            1. And Dan shows us that he’s never done any sort of science. You know, where you interpret data.


              Smith paused. “Because, frankly, I don’t have any myself.”

              An awkward silence followed for the next few seconds, and then Hanngush slowly raised a mechanical arm to speak.

              1. Data is objective. An interpretation of said data is subjective.

                This is not a tough concept.

                1. You couldn’t be stupider, Dan. An interpretation of data is an explanation for what produced it. Explanations are right or wrong. You fucking moron.

                2. Well, if two people interpret a foreign language, then they can come to vastly different interpretations, but that doesn’t mean wrong doesn’t exist. It does.

            2. And every interpretation is as valid and deserving of respect as every other, right? So then my interpretation of the Constitution is just as valid as the SCOTUS.

              Woo hoo!!

              1. You are free to give any interpretation as much validation and respect as you wish, yes.

                1. Therefore a complete ban on all speech in the US is not “wrong” because it is an interpretation of the 1st amendment?

                2. Ah yes, pulling out the deconstructionist theory.

                  There is not truth or authorial intent, there is only interpretation and opinion.

                  Deconstructionism, created by critics for the benefit of critics.

            3. The problem is that progressives think that any part of the constitution that doesn’t fit their ideology needs to be interpreted differently.

              An objective standard would mean taking the constitution at it’s most literal meaning. You cannot be objective and not be literal, hence the problem with the commerce clause. In other words, the objective standard is reality.

              If everyone was objective the commerce clause would mean just what it says–that congress has the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the indian tribes.”

              But, since progressives live in their own subjective reality, the clause now means that congress can regulate commerce between PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN the states.

              When you change the prepositions in the clause, you change the meaning. Replacing among (meaning between) with within (which is the meaning in practice) is just as absurd as saying that congress has the power to “regulate commerce WITHIN foreign nations….”

              Oh and interpretations CAN be incorrect.

          2. to interpret (third-person singular simple present interprets, present participle interpreting, simple past and past participle interpreted)

            1. To explain or tell the meaning of; to expound; to translate orally into intelligible or familiar language or terms; to decipher; to define

            1. Yeah, that’s subjective. I interpret it differently.

        2. So you think the court was correct in INTERPRETING the Constitution in Dred Scott and Plessy?

          1. Shit, belay that. I’m feeding the troll.

      2. The point about case law is that the CRA is constitutional at present, and pretty bedrock. You’re welcome to try and undo the precedents. I conceded that you reject those precedents. But don’t come back with an argument about how it’s so obviously unconstitutional, because according to the process that determines constitutionality it’s not.

        1. SCOTUS doesn’t determine consitutionality. SCOTUS is the government deciding what parts of the Constitution the government can ignore.

          The Dred Scott decision was unconstitutional.

          Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional.

    3. Re: Tony,

      There are two conflicting liberties here: that of business owners to admit whoever they want, and that of people not to be systematically discriminated against in society and commerce.

      The second one is not a liberty, it is an entitlement. Don’t equivocate, Tony. One does not have a right not to be discriminated against, since such “right” imposes an OBLIGATION upon someone else. Rights emanate from oneself, not from others.

      1. Property rights are actually entitlements as well. If you own a car, the law says you are entitled to drive it, paint it, repair it, etc. while others who don’t own it are not.

        1. What law says this? I know of know law that says I am entitled to paint or repair my car. I do those things because it is my car, my property. My entitlement, rather my privilege, is driving on a public road with a license. I don’t need to own a car to do that. I could rent or borrow a vehicle. Moron.

          1. *know of no*


        2. So, you like property rights now?

          Refusing to serve someone violates no rights and is not based on force, unless you believe that women should have no right to turn down sex, because that would imply discrimination. I think I’m starting to like this view you have, Dan. On the other hand, if someone tries to drive your car, then they are initiating force against your property, thus violating your rights. Honestly, I don’t need a gov’t for this to work. A shotgun works well enough.

        3. You are utterly fucking clueless.

          I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      2. Ever been turned down by a girl? That’s discrimination! My body type and facial construct are not to her liking! I demand a law is made to force her to be attracted to me.

        Rights exist whether or not laws exist to protect them. I don’t need a committee of people to sit down and tell me that I have a right to live or to own property.

        If you apply Dan T’s argument, then all “rights” become entitlements simply because his argument implies that rights are granted to us by the government.

        Rights are not created by fucking decree!

        1. Rights are not created by fucking decree!

          We beg to differ.

          1. As would the UN, and any other committee who sits down and decides to pontificate on what human beings have a “right” to…

      3. OM as you well know I don’t believe in a thick-line distinction between positive and negative rights. I’m talking about what a person is physically capable of doing. Legally banning discrimination increased the amount of liberty in the world a great deal, at the mere expense of the liberty of business owners to act on their bigotry (with the implied sanction of the community and government). As with all freedoms, it’s a tradeoff, and a good one.

    4. Ah, I begin to see the fundamental problem here. You believe the ability to engage in commerce is a “privelege” bestowed upon the individual by the “community.”


      1. Very much so. Before you even open your doors you get all sorts of bonuses from the mere fact of living in a functioning society: roads, cops, etc.

        1. But I would also get roads and cops if I did nothing.

          1. Freeloader.

    5. and that of people not to be systematically discriminated against in society and commerce.

      So if a man or woman propositions you, but you find them aesthetically displeasing, their right to not be discriminated against trumps your right to decide what to do with your property, i.e. your body?

      You have no more a right to not be discriminated against than you have a right to have everyone like you.

    6. Re: Tony,

      Property may be private, but it’s not sovereign. You should have to abide by your community’s standards if you want the privilege of engaging in commerce within that community.

      Comments like these indicate to anyone with frontal lobes that you do not understand the concept of “property”. You think it has to do with land, but it actually stems from the self-ownership principle, which states you OWN your body, and thus, anything you possess. So saying that “property is not sovereign” implies you do not have sovereignity over your OWN BODY. Think, before you write.

      1. I believe he is thinking before he writes. I’ve never met a statist who truly believes in self-ownership. Right or left, they think the government has the authority (some are whacko enough to say “government has the ‘right'”) to not only tax away every last nickel you own, but also to forcibly seize your body for whatever fucked-up purpose it’s “needed” for. A stupid war, slavery in “public works” projects (euphemistically referred to as “national service”), etc.

        1. Most governments in history have certainly had that right (for the sake of argument, we can call it an ability). Only through enlightened social contracts are governments restricted from doing what really are arbitrary things we’ve decided are worthy of protecting from government.

          1. The word you’re looking for is power, not ability or right.

            1. I don’t think the semantics matter a great deal.

              1. Social contract??? I never signed a social contract!

                Social contract theory is bogus because you cannot opt out of it. It’s slightly more legitimate if I choose to move to a new country because you can argue that I agreed to their rules by choosing to move there, but for a person’s native country that doesn’t apply.

                I know I’m treading into anarchist territory here, but I don’t consider any contract to be valid unless I enter into it willingly. I put up with the current situation primarily because I have no choice. What’s a slave to do when there’s no where to run to?

                also, Semantics matter because they are fundamental to accurately communicating ideas.

                1. You most certainly can opt out, by renouncing your citizenship. You were entered into the contract upon birth since according to the terms your parents being citizens makes you one, and they were your custodians at the time. Nobody said you had a right to your private utopia, but there are plenty of countries to choose from.

                  On the semantics, I just don’t really acknowledge much of a practical difference between “rights,” “abilities,” or “powers,” if “rights” mean anything.

    7. “There are two conflicting liberties here: that of business owners to admit whoever they want, and that of people not to be systematically discriminated against in society and commerce.”

      Wrong dipstick.

      There is no such thing as a “right” not to be discriminated against (i.e a right to require someone else to to do business with you).

      That would be an AFFIRMATIVE right.

      And there is no such thing as AFFIRMATIVE rights.

      All rights are NEGATIVE rights.

      1. I dismiss your premise. Name any so-called negative right and I can tell you why it’s also positive obligation on someone else.

        1. You can dismiss anything you want.

          It will not change the absolute fact that you are flat out wrong one iota.

          And no, you absolutely cannot come up with ANY negative right that creates a “positive” obligation on anyone else.

          1. Sure I can.

            Your negative right not to have your property trespassed upon requires positive action from your fellow citizens to support a police force to make that right possible.

            Also, I am positively required not to trespass–I am denied the right to your stuff.

            These conventions are, when you get down to it, arbitrary.

            1. You failed attempt to spin a netative obligation NOT to do something into a positive obligation – was not at all arbitrary.

              It was a dead certainty given your extremly limited brain power.

              1. The point is rights have to be enforced to have any meaning, which means a positive obligation on the part of government and taxpayers.

                1. Not if I enforce them myself, or if I work together with my friends to enforce them. Government isn’t a positive requirement (though in this case it may be an expedient one)

                  Further, a right doesn’t have to be actively enforced to have meaning. Sure, without any enforcement many people will ignore the rights of others, but mature principled adults respect the rights of others EVEN when there is no enforcement. If for no other reason, we respect the rights of others in hopes that they will respect our rights.

                  1. And libertarianism would be great if the world were populated only with mature, principled adults. I don’t even think I know one.

  14. Stossel concludes with:

    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.

    So exactly who does he think makes up the government? Space aliens?

    Like most liberatarians, Stossel seems to think the government is something imposed onto us from the outside that “the people” have no power or control over. He forgets that every government official is also a private citizen and that every private citizen also has a stake in government.

    1. “Milk will stop the transmissions, but it will kill me,” he said in a muffled tone of voice.

      I ignored him and headed into the bathroom. Once inside, I washed my hand off to remove the blood and took off my stained oxford shirt. I was wearing a tank top underneath. Before I could dry my hands with a paper towel (my thumb was still a bloody mess), there was a knock on the door. It was Otis.

      1. Every time you post DanTard’s pedantic prose, I imagine it narrated by William Shatner.

    2. Re: Dan,

      So exactly who does he think makes up the government? Space aliens?

      No. Criminals. That’s all.

      1. Well, if the people want criminals to run things, what’s the problem?

        1. Well, if the people want to enslave all black people, what’s the problem?

          1. Dan T,

            Jordan hit the nail on the head. In a pure democracy, majority rules absolutely. The US is supposed to be a republic in order that the rights of each individual are not violated by the will of a larger body of people.

            So yes, the government is made of the people and it represent the will of the majority, but the idea of limited government exists to prevent the will of the majority from violating the individual’s rights.

            1. This argument always gets on my nerves. There’s nothing in the (very vague) definition of a republic that suggests it must be constitutional, much less liberal. It doesn’t even have to functionally democratic — part of the definition is that the government is “for the people”, but that doesn’t require it be “by” or “of” the people.

              1. True, “republic” isn’t the right word.

                Replace “republic” with “constitutional” and my argument still holds.

    3. So exactly who does he think makes up the government? Space aliens?

      I think Space Aliens would have done a much better job at … well, everything.

    4. Maybe he just recognizes that a majority of voters think like you instead of him. Tyranny of the majority does not cease to be tyranny just because a lot of people think it’s OK.

      1. “Tyranny of the Majority” is an oxymoron.

        1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

          Read definitions 1 and 3. Do you think at all before you write?

        2. only if you assume the individual has no rights.

          Hypothetically speaking, if the members of this board, including you, were the society that we lived in. I’m pretty sure we could have a majority vote to do some pretty terrible things to you.

          Under a pure democracy, that would be perfectly legal. Under a republic, because the individual has rights, it would be illegal.

        3. 99 people in a room of 100 think you, the 1 minority in the room, should be killed. That’s not tyranny even though your inherent right to life would be violated? That’s not just a majority, it’s overwhelming, a mandate, if you will.

        4. I’m sure slaves felt that way.

    5. Look at ObamaCare, a bill that has over 60% disapproval rate, and get back to me on that whole government does not impose where it isn’t wanted deal.

      To think that government doesn’t act in direct opposition to those it serves is fucking blind to reality.


  15. Yeah, the United States really turned out poorly. Our style of government has only led us to the leading civilization in the world.

    1. Don’t be his porn.

      1. Sorry, SF, I cant’ help myself sometimes. I mean, when I see an overwhelming flood of stupid, I feel like I should try to toss up a few sandbags to contain it.

        1. I level no judgment. I was at their mercy for years as well. I’m just trying to point the way. I’m trying to help you help yourself.

          1. You may have convinced me. All this time I thought he was a real person and I wanted to have a legitimate discussion with him, help him see that he’s so wrong. His “‘Tyranny of the Majority’ is an oxymoron” statement makes me think he can’t possibly be real. Or he’s the dumbest real person ever.

            1. I think he’s just taking a piss. Nobody can be that dense!

          2. I try to never engage with him beyond posting excerpts from his terrible stories, but it’s hard sometimes.

          3. Lead us to the promised land!

  16. It makes sense to me that economic theory would suggest that racism would harm an enterprise in many ways, making it costly and therefore discouraged. But surely economic theory would also suggest that by increasing the costs of discrimination via anti-discrimination laws discrimination is made too costly to practice.

    1. Not true, MNG. It is well known that, from a litigation perspective, it is easier to fire a white male without the fear of a discrimination suit based on race, than say, an obese black woman, who may claim discrimination in firing based on race, size (health), etc.

      1. I’m not exactly sure what your point is Groovus, can you rephrase it?

        1. But surely economic theory would also suggest that by increasing the costs of discrimination via anti-discrimination laws discrimination is made too costly to practice.

          If it is cheaper and easier to hire and fire the thin white guy than the obese black woman due to anti-discrimination laws making it harder to fire a minority worker, who do you think is going to have the greater chance in hiring? Instead of helping the minority, the obese black woman, anti-discrimination has hindered her.

          You knew this MNG, don’t play dumb.

          1. But the laws apply to hiring too Groovus.

            1. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

              I see it all the time here without the racial component. Even lowly staff like me are almost impossible to fire. Between the university regs, the state worker’s regs, and the plain old fact that firing just about anyone other than a straight white male triggers an investigation by the Office of Multicultural Affairs and the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, we just don’t hire people. We’ve closed down 6 positions in my tiny little slice of the library in the 10 years I’ve been here. It’s just easier to make everyone do more work than risk hiring someone that you can’t fire.

            2. You do realize that the simplest way to skirt hiring quotas is to just not hire, right?

            3. And how do you prove racial discrimination when there is equal opportunity to apply for a job?

            4. The classic example is the drop in employment of “handicapped” persons. The baggage that comes with accommodating the legal requirements involved with employing a handicapped person create incentives to find a better appplicant.

            5. I think that was the point.

      2. I grant you the second part (though of course I think preventing discrimination outweighs the right to discriminate morally).

        I wonder what part was played by anti-discrimination laws in shaping an American culture where the discrimination of one black person would trigger outrage among whites? Prior to such laws it did not seem to do that (notably in some areas of the country).

    2. As for the first part, all things being equal, you are correct. But if, say, the presence of one black customer leads to a boycott by 50 white customers, you are incorrect.

      As for the second part, the mechanism of using anti-discrimination laws would make racism economically unfeasible is valid, but the efficacy of a method does not speak to its morality.

      1. Whoops. Supposed to be here, but the server discriminated against me…

        I grant you the second part (though of course I think preventing discrimination outweighs the right to discriminate morally).

        I wonder what part was played by anti-discrimination laws in shaping an American culture where the discrimination of one black person would trigger outrage among whites? Prior to such laws it did not seem to do that (notably in some areas of the country).

        1. I don’t know I can untangle the question enough to answer it. Racism is real, but the really ugly dogs and water hoses was more of reaction to be dictated to integrate than the integration. Decades removed, the sort of racism I’ve seen growing up in the South is a much more quiet separation of whites and blacks than any really overt hate.

          I don’t believe that everything would have been peaches and cream if the Jim Crow laws were only overturned. And I really don’t think that the “lunch counter” application of anti-discrimination was a horrific breach of private property. But I do think it was a horrible precedent to set and worry more about how it will be exploited in the future.

  17. This is the same line of thinking that if something isn’t outlawed, it’s condoned. Authoritarian thinking at its finest.

    1. The comment above was meant as response to the article in general – it wasn’t a response to anyone.

      But the basic idea is the Hobbesian universe where evil humans will do horrible things unless Leviathan smacks them down for not doing so.

  18. Does Reason send Stossel a form 1099 for these Thursday Stossel Show Promos?

  19. And remember the article from, I think either Howley or Mangu-Ward, about the boss who liked the expensive shag carpet in his office. Sure, he could have a cheaper carpet in his office and further maximize his profits, but he likes this shag rug and doesn’t mind the little inefficiency that having it costs him. People are’nt robotic automatic maximizers. Discrimination could be the same way. Sure, you lose a customer here or there, but you have the pleasure of doing things your way. Surely many an enterprise has been quite successful with that attitude…

    1. As should they all. My business, my problem. Your business, your problem.

      1. If you’re the customer/employee turned away because of race, maybe your problem too…

        1. Your rights have not been violated, just your feelings hurt. A problem, yes, I suppose it is. Not worth using the heavy hand of government to change, lest you be revisited by that same heavy hand some day. Making the government weak helps everyone avoid oppression eventually.

          1. But we created the right not to be discriminated against. Western civilization has been creating new rights since its inception.

            More freedom. Yay.

            1. The rights you’re talking about are actually obligations on other people. Less freedom. Boo.

              True rights can not be created. They can only be recognized.

              1. All rights are created. Where was the right to free speech hiding all those tens of thousands of years before it was “recognized”?

                1. You’re right there, Tony. Says so right in the founding documents…hmmm…let’s see here….”endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…”. Yep, I knew that sounded familiar! So you’re right! Good job!

                  Wait, what’s that? You meant these rights were created by man? Oh damn, and I thought we were nearing a breakthrough. Tony, just because your rights are at times overcome by injustice and tyranny does not mean that you ever ceased to have those rights. Similarly, the answer to your question is that those rights were there all the time, but oppressed by a tyrannical government/church.

                  1. The Declaration’s rhetoric is lovely but this conception of rights requires you to believe in nonsense. I don’t believe in God, so He couldn’t have endowed me with anything.

                    Rights are the invention of people collectively. We are free to invent new ones. Eventually, I think, dolphins and chimps should have more rights, and I don’t think they’re gonna come from the dolphin or chimp gods.

                    1. The fact that you don’t believe in God does not negate Him giving you rights, Tony. You could not believe in McDonald’s as fervently as you’d like, but it’d still be there. Now I’m not arguing for or against the existence of God here, but face it, if He does exist He is pretty much indifferent to your opinion of his existence.

                      Your argument seems to be that people invented these rights and therefore that all rights are subject to change and cancellation. I think we all see the basis for your worldview: because there is no truly objective standard for right and wrong (i.e. a higher power that one could appeal to), whatever rights exist do so solely at the whim of the controlling authority and can be modified or cancelled at their whim. This gives you the authority to curtail or cancel the rights of others, because it’s all for the greater good.

                    2. Bah. Forget about “God”.

                      God is a placeholder and is irrelevant to rights. It’s not “god” that forms the basis of natural rights but the mere fact of being an autonomous, thinking human being. The rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence is pretty, but basically EVERYONE (who mattered) at the time of the nation’s founding, religious or not, recognized that rights don’t come from government or charters and that in fact, the only thing a government or a charter can do is limit liberty.

                      Thomas Paine himself stated: “It is a perversion of terms to day that charters give rights…”

                      The best argument for people having natural liberties is that me and you and everyone else on the planet are independent actors – each with our own values, needs, skills and desires. NO ONE else can know better than ourselves what will be relevant to our individual pursuit of happiness. And as such, no one has a higher claim on our bodies & minds than we do as individuals.

                      There is absolutely no rational basis by which to justify the control of one humans being’s decisions by another who cannot possibly know what’s going on inside the mind of the first.

        2. True, and if you’re a virgin at 45 because you’re a Trekkie, you’ve also been a victim of discrimination. But if you propose legally requiring women to lower their standards and sleep with a certain quota of nerds, suddenly you’re the bad guy.

    2. A special rug for shagging?

      Hmm… an idea that has merit…

      1. Dear Savage Love,

        I have recently started dating a sexually adventurous man. He is the first person to successfully fist me, and it’s fantastic. When I orgasm, both during the fisting and after the fisting while he fingers me, I squirt. Lots. Afterward, the sheets are soaked and I’m in a puddle. We’ve put towels down, but the sheer volume of liquid soaks through them. Without towels, it soaks all the way through to the mattress. I’m not super-pleased about ruining my mattress, and the postcoital sleeping on very wet sheets is not ideal.
        I don’t really want to sleep on a plastic-wrapped mattress and change my sheets every time we have sex. Does anything exist that’s super-absorbent that I could put down during sex, or even something that might go under the sheets to at least protect the bed?

        – Wasting Endless Towels

        The bed is a nice place to sleep, a good place to read, and an obvious place to fuck. But you can have sex elsewhere, WET, and you can acquire just-for-fucking furniture/furnishings without going to hell with the vaginal-before-marriage crowd. Instead of attempting to fist-and-squirt-proof your bed?which is impossible?go to a sporting-goods store and pick up a large, folding wrestling mat. Store it under the bed, WET, and when your sexy time involves fisting?and hopefully you’re not fisting every time you have sex?GET OUT OF BED, pull the mat out, throw some towels down, and fist and squirt to your heart’s content. Then when you’re all over?the towels, the mat, the floor?you’ll be able to crawl back into your warm, dry, comfortable bed.


    3. People are’nt robotic automatic maximizers.

      I disagree. Perhaps the boss in your example wasn’t maximizing his profit, but he does seem to be maximizing his utility. If he thought the extra cost was worth it for the shag, then why not buy it? What good is money if you don’t trade it for things you want?

      1. People have a far too simplistic conception of what’s being “maximized”. Almost no one lives life to maximize their hoarded *money*. They do, however, tend to try to maximize their personal happiness by acquiring things they value.

        As you said, Mr. Simple, if the boss in that example really liked that carpet – he was pursuing something he valued over a higher profit margin and that; for him, is a good trade.

    4. True. But not every person will splurge on the pleasure of discriminating. Some will no doubt. But most will not. And further, if they are that intent on doing it, it is doubtful that laws will make much of a difference. I can serve you without making your feel welcome or want to come back.

  20. Rand Paul kind of looks like a younger, intelligent Bill O’ Reilly.

  21. I have a serious question regarding the liberterian philosophy and its relation to the ‘big picture.’

    Does anyone honestly believe that supporting the removal of portions of the CRA will really win us any elections? Don’t you think there’s a reason that Rand Paul backtracked on this?

    Is the issue of allowing discrimination in business such a tenet of liberterianism that we shouldn’t ‘let this one go’ or whatever you want to call it? There is perhpas some benefit to appealing to the middle, no?

    1. You are right, and it illustrates nicely how libertarians are stuck between a rock and a hard place…in order to get a libertarian candidate elected, he has to compromise his views to the point where they are no longer libertarian.

      1. That’s because once people really hear libertarian positions on things like the Civil Rights Act, they turn away in droves.

      2. in order to get a libertarian candidate elected, he has to compromise his views to the point where they are no longer libertarian.

        Nonsense. I don’t think a somewhat equivocal view on this topic means someone is “no longer liberterian.” Look at immigration – reason keeps churning out articles against the new Arizona law, but there are PLENTY of liberterians who fully support the law. In such an instance, who is right?

        1. The problem with getting libertarians elected at the national, and to a lesser extent state, levels isn’t that too much of the populace disagrees with the libertarian view point. For example, libertarian candidates are often elected to local city/county positions. The problem is that the two major parties have a strangle on our political system.

          One of the primary design features of our election system is the winner-take-all method for election instead of the “if you X% of votes you get X% of seats” that some European countries have. The major parties take advantage of this by placing themselves on opposite sides of center and appealing partly to libertarians and partly to their own brands of irrationality.

          Many Libertarians are excited by the fact that the Republican party has fallen apart so disastrously as it finally gives us a hint of an opportunity for shifting the axis of the two party system in our favor (into a statist vs liberty (down vs up if you will) dichotomy instead of a left vs right dichotomy).

          In my view though it’s going to be difficult because there aren’t very many true authoritarians in America and therefore there’s no one available to populate the opposition party. This is why the two parties stand where they do in the first place.

          For most libertarians the MO therefore shifts from “attempting to take over as a major party” to “courting both parties in an attempt to simultaneously convince everyone to move in our direction together”

    2. This was a “gotcha” by a cuntsore “journalist” who knew her guest was too principled to lie about his views. You’re right that repealing the section of the CRA that deals with property rights will win no votes.

      My argument is that honesty, and a refusal to take unprincipled stances, may eventually win some elections. But we need a format that is far more friendly to libertarian views than even Fox business has been. Essentially, we need an ‘LNN’ to promote our viewpoints and go in depth as to why libertarians hold the views they do. As it is, it’s far too easy for simpletons like Maddow to discredit someone like Paul because they cut off the long chain of reasoning, and only leave the ugly result.

      IOW, I don’t like Illinois Nazis, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to speech.

      1. And granting interviews to journalists with IQs above house cats would help to.

        1. granting interviews to journalists with IQs above house cats would help

          You have to find one first.

          1. My housecat is an evil genius. Good luck finding a journalist who is smarter than him.

      2. Was it really Maddow that discredited Paul? Wouldn’t you say the subsequent statement he released (where he said he’d support the CRA) lost him a great deal of credibility?

        1. You’re right – he should have explained his reasoning as to why he thought the way he did, and not waffle.

          But why did she bring it up? It’s not like he was campaigning on the issue, and he certainly wouldn’t have introduced a bill to overturn the law were he elected. She brought it up as a “gotcha!”

          1. She brought it up obviously because he had previously indicated that he didn’t support parts of the CRA.

            This is a radical view, and inquiring voters have a right to know about it, don’t you think/

        2. A good response would have been “If elected, I have no plans on introducing legislation to change the CRA in any way”.

          1. Amen, I agree with you on that point

      3. Somewhat off topic, it reminds me of the radio interview Glenn Beck did with Debra Medina regarding the 9-11 truthers.

      4. Jesus. Yes let’s give libertarians their own propaganda platform so they can explain why their beliefs are so great and not have to get into the gritty little details like how it requires us to sanction racial discrimination.

        The question was fair. It was not “gotcha.” His views are radical–the people have a right to know about them.

        1. Just like freedom of speech forces us to sanction bigotry.

          You’re being retarded Tony. On purpose.

  22. The free market didn’t do the right thing, and that’s why the Civil Rights Act was passed. In regards to child labor, and indentured servitude, the free market also failed to do what was right.

    Keep digging in. Let everyone see the end result of libertarian ideas.

    It’s amazing that this is the issue the libertarians are going to champion now. I’m glad. It lets sane people see exactly where this free market fundamentalism will lead.

    1. There was no free market because the government made it illegal not to discriminate against blacks, you idiot. Try actually reading the damn post before you comment.

    2. “In regards to child labor, and indentured servitude, the free market also failed to do what was right.”

      Spoken like a true fat dumb Westerner. If you were living in a poor country or living in this country a hundred years ago and sending your child to work was the difference between eating or not, you would not look at the market that gives you a way to live as failing.

      Further, I would say the government, in forcing children to go to horrible schools through the age of 16 instead of going out and learning a trade and starting their careers is failing children a lot more then the market ever did. We take poor children and warehouse them in schools that are little more than prisons and pass child labor and mandatory schooling laws to make sure they have no other choice.

      1. +1 John

        In the good ole days, a child would become an apprentice at 12 or so and by the age of 16, he/she was probably a darn useful person to have around.

        These days, we send kids to high school, where nothing is required of them and create a prison culture and become miserable, emo, angsty “teenagers.”

        You never read anything about teenagers in the 1800’s or before being uncontrollable, cutting themselves, etc.

        Especially in today’s academic environment where it takes a lot more schooling to understand a subject competently, we should specializing on a skill much sooner than 18.

        1. It gets even worse. We are sending kids to college to waste four more years and end up thousands of dollars in debt. All so the educational industrial complex can be the new leisure class.

          1. Yup, and the next government-blown bubble…

      2. Ever occur to you that one of the reasons we’re not a 3rd world country is because of universal education?

        Even the poorest countries have wealthy elites. The problem is everyone else doesn’t have the opportunity to join them. That’s what universal education is meant to alleviate.

        1. Is there a point of diminishing returns on education?

        2. You’ve got it backwards. We have universal education because we’re not a 3rd world country, not the other way around.

          1. I consider it a defining characteristic of an advanced country, but whatever.

        3. That’s completely asinine and ignorant, as usual Tony… Most 3rd World countries ALSO have some form of universal education. See: Most of Africa.

          Those schools just happen to suck a lot worse than ours do, which on the scale of things, suck a lot worse than most other industrialized ones.

          Sounds like a big win there.

    3. Yes, because the free market dictated by law that slavery could exist


    4. John not only is he an idiot, he’s wrong. Child labor was decreasing quickly even without labor laws. The reason was that as real wages rose, there was no need for people to send their kids to the factories. Also, kids aren’t exactly the best workers – the factory owners far preferred adults.

      One of the few areas where child labor was kept going was on family farms. But those are viewed with such rosy admiration by leftists idiots, they get a free pass.

      And indentured servitude? WTF?

      1. He doesn’t even know what it means. He thinks indentured servitude is a fancy form of white folk slavery, and not something as basic as a work contract.

        As long as debtor’s prison doesn’t exist (run by–you guessed it–the government), indentured servitude is really no different from any other sort of contract labor.

        And, for the dumbasses who think indentured servitude and slavery are the same thing, then most Irish and German white people are descended from slaves. Where’s my reparations, bitch?

        1. Thank you! My ancestor entered into an indentured servitude contract with a rich family, was able to come to America with them and worked off his debt and married their daughter! That really doesn’t sound like slavery to me.

  23. Discrimination isn’t the issue, it’s property rights, which are not only the basis for libertarian beliefs, but also of freedom.

    That and we never turn down an argument. It gives us a chance to show how right and principled we are.

    1. this should have been a response to jacob.

      1. I got your point. My point is that perhaps there is a bigger picture involved, one where we can advance our views about health care/foreign policy/taxation without getting hung up on topics like the Civil Rights Act, which could cost us a lot of support from ‘the middle.’

        1. I agree. It’s a tactical failure on the libertarian’s part to get caught up in this stuff

          –and the fact that it’s possible to catch us up in it is what the major parties are really referring to when they call us idealists.

          1. Right and right. Be careful of the slippery slope of pragmatism though. Eventually you’ll realize your only relevant choice is to be a Democrat or a Republican.

            1. Kind of like when your only relevant choice as a North Korean is to vote that dear leader ticket one more time?

  24. I read about minorities that say how they get followed by the employees or the manager because the manager’s racist and thinks they’ll steal things. So this is what the CRA did? Force people to serve them but at the same time, treat them like sub-citizens.

    1. A few points:

      — Even if the CRA did what it should, and allowed private property/business owners to restrict access to their property based on the criteria of their choosing (race, gender, whatever), few would have the balls to proclaim this openly (i.e. post a sign outside their establishments saying “no blacks allowed” or such) because of the sh*tstorm and possibly physical harm they’d risk. Most businesses that want to discriminate would continue discriminating on the sly just as you’ve described. CRA or no, these businesses (and I suspect there are a lot of them) would keep right on doing under-the-table discrimination. Business owners don’t want trouble: if they discriminate, that’s the reason why; and if they keep their discrimination on the down-low, same reason.

      — Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Humans make judgments based on observed patterns of behavior over time. A store manager/owner who has an “unofficial” policy of following around minorities might just have plenty of evidence that yeah, when thefts occur, brown people steal more stuff from his/her store than pink ones. S/he might have security camera footage that proves this. Why do we treat business owners who make sound decisions to limit their losses, based on their own experience and evidence, like criminals?

      — Minorities who don’t like how they’re treated in certain stores or restaurants don’t have to give them their business. Don’t like the hairy eyeball you get when you go into a store? Shop elsewhere, or online.

      — Racism is thought. 210 years, and thought still isn’t a crime in America! Well, whaddya know!

  25. I got nothin’ to add.

    I’m just glad to see Old Mexican commenting to bring some order and maturity to the chaos.

    Thank you, Old Mexican! Good to hear from you again!

  26. They are idiots who can’t wrap their head around the concept of freedom. They believe the ends justify the means. Fuck them. John Stossel is one of the only two sane people on the Fox News networks and one of the few defenders of liberty on TV today.

    1. Who is the other sane person?

      1. Judge Napolitano.

  27. Like all things pertaining to the market, there will be the vast middle which will be integrated and no dissimilar to the present, and a long tail of niche segregated markets, areas, etc. One cannot wish this away.
    As libertarians who cherish freedom of association, you cannot escape the fact that some people (on the long tail perhaps) will choose to segregate themselves, just like fundamentalist religious sects or cults.
    And this should be OKAY, whether done by race, religion, sex, body hair count, clothing style, etc etc etc.
    You cannot push the long tail away.
    The problem of course, is that this is considered EVILLLL by Proggies and MSM, therefore the existence of the long tail cannot be tolerated, and hence, freedom of association must be quashed.

  28. So, here’s my little thought experiment on why this is ridiculous. I have a zucchini plant in my backyard. Every year around this time it starts producing more zucchini than I’m ever going to eat. So, in a burst of cheerful altruism, I decide I’m going to stand on a street corner and give away my excess zucchini.

    Of course, let’s assume for a moment I’m a sexist, racist pig and I only want to give away my zucchini to white males. It is perfectly legal for me to do so, right? I can discriminate all I want. It may make me an ass, but I can do it.

    But the minute I take money for the zucchini, it’s against the law. Somebody explain to me how this makes any rational sense.

    1. I don’t think it’s against the law if you walk on the street selling zucchini only to white males. I think you have to have a business registered with the government, so if you have zucchini kiosk, then it would be illegal. I could be wrong though: could some clarify this point?

    2. Libertarians: Fighting for the rights of racist zucchini vendors since 2010!

    3. Well, under the Progressive view, there is barely a right to make a profit. Corporations are inherently evil and should only be tolerated by the Collective/State/People as long as it suits the State’s needs.

      So therefore, when you introduce legal tender into the equation, you are greedy and therefore immoral and should be regulated for the benefit of the Collective.

    4. It’s probably illegal to give away zuchinni without a permit from the health department, anyway.

      I know, for instance, at Burning Man, it’s illegal to give away food without having your camp kitchen inspected and getting a permit to do so.

      1. Those damned statists that run Burning Man… How dare they impede on my right to get food poisoning in the desert!

        1. it’s not the people who run Burning Man who imposed this rule. It was the State of Nevada.

          The Burning Man people hate it.

  29. Who cares if free markets will make discrimination unlikely?

    It’s my property I should be able to tell blacks to get the f*** out.

    1. LOL! Reason #230283942304320 on why Libertarians will thankfully never see power.

      You gotta fight for your right! To be a racist asshole!

      1. If being an asshole is a crime, I suspect 97% of the USA will be in court shortly.

        1. Be difficult to run court, because I haven’t met a lawyer, judge, or bailiff yet that didn’t qualify.

      2. Shut the fuck up, Edward. You are as useful as a turd in a dead hooker cunt.

        1. How Reasonable!

  30. Libertarians: Fighting for the right of the free market to be as racist as they want to be!

    1. If you want freedom, then you have accept the ability to make bad choices as well as good ones. If you’re only allowed to make good choices, you’re not free.

      1. What if you’re black and by that fact alone you have fewer choices than everyone else?

        1. What if you’re black and by that fact alone you have fewer choices than everyone else?

          [Citation please]

          1. ?

            It’s a hypothetical.

            1. @Groovus: I’m going to assume Tony’s hypothetical applies to the previous eras in which it was true, and not to the contemporary environment in which it is, at most, impossible to demonstrate.

              @Tony: What if you have a low IQ or are an orphan or you’re born with crippling disease and by that fact alone you have fewer choices than everyone else? What if I’m a white albino born in Africa and therefore have fewer opportunities? I know what you’re thinking, “How dare he compare blacks to retards and cripples?!”

              But my point is that we’re not born the same and liberty isn’t there to ensure equal outcome. Liberty exists to ensure that we can make the most of what we have without hurting others. This does NOT mean that everyone comes out equal. That’s not the goal anyway. To me “fair” does not mean that I get half and you get half. Fair means that I get the results of my work, and you get the results of yours.

              To be clear I’m not saying that people get the same result from their labor. Some people will have to work harder for the same result–women have to work harder to gain the same muscle mass. Obese people have to work harder to climb stairs.

              Fairness is about making sure that the work that one person does–no matter who–isn’t given to someone else. If you climb the stairs, you get to the top. It wouldn’t be fair (or, thankfully, possible) to put the fat person at the top of the stairs and make you climb them AGAIN just because you’re not fat and he is.

              Fairness is about allowing people to work the way they choose, with the people they feel will be best for them. The key tenet here being that both parties must agree before anything can happen. If one party–for any reason no matter how stupid–doesn’t agree, but is forced to interact anyway, that’s fundamentally unfair and against liberty.

              This isn’t about maximizing choices, it’s about not inhibiting the ability of people to make the choices available to them. Creating new choices through government always involves both restricting existing choices AND deciding what choices are good enough to offer to the people. I am fundamentally against government deciding what choices I should have, and my point was that in order to avoid government making choices for me that I don’t want it to make, I have to accept that there will be choices I can’t make because government didn’t supply them to me.

              I think that trade off is the only “fair” one.

              1. What if you have a low IQ or are an orphan or you’re born with crippling disease and by that fact alone you have fewer choices than everyone else? What if I’m a white albino born in Africa and therefore have fewer opportunities? I know what you’re thinking, “How dare he compare blacks to retards and cripples?!”

                That’s not my first thought at all. It’s how can society make equal opportunity more real for these groups?

                This does NOT mean that everyone comes out equal.

                I don’t think outcomes should be equal. Just opportunity-recognizing that perfect equality will never be possible, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make it as available as possible.

                The reason I believe this is part practical and part moral. Practically, the idea is that the greater the pool of human talent the better the outcomes, and a person’s talent is nurtured only when that person can feed himself. It’s just equal access to basic needs I want, which will never fully erase the inequalities of nature. But working to mitigate these is the main project of civilization.

                The moral case is, as all moral cases are, arbitrary to an extent, but not any more so than the one you’ve given here. I believe it defines fairness more accurately, to include the obligation you have to your community that exists because you enjoy its benefits.

    2. Yes, allowing people to be racists is part of allowing them to be free.

      1. And yet no one has denied your right to be a racist, have they?

        You can be a racist asshole as long as you like, no one is going to stop you.

        But if you open a restaurant up to the public, but try to discriminate against a small subset of the public, prepare to have your racist ass shut down.

        No one is stopping you from having a private klan rally, if that’s what you like to do.

        1. No one is stopping you from having a private klan rally, if that’s what you like to do.

          If I charge admission and serve little burning-cross shaped cookies, apparently it would be a “public accomodation”.

          1. No one is trying to outlaw private clubs. If you and your racist pals want to sit around and eat burning cross shaped cookies, and have a KKK bake sale, go for it.

  31. My wider point is that minorities being (of course) smaller …

    Check your numbers again.

  32. I applaud Stossel for having the balls to make a principled, if unpopular argument.

    This is really the kind of things that journalists are FOR.

    Not to massage the public’s prejudices, but to challange them to think differently.

    Yup, I used the word ‘prejudice’, because frankly, we have people who are bigoted based on politics these days, including a lot of journalists, and that needs to stop.

  33. “Tyranny of the Majority” is an oxymoron.

    This really says everything you need to know about Dan T.

    1. That has to be a spoof, leaving aside the question of whether all of his posts are such.

  34. So how would the law apply to a vegan coffee shop discriminating against someone based on their profession (in this case police officer) rather than race?


    1. Check the cup!!! That was the monthly shakedown!

  35. There are people who question the historical veracity of the Holocaust and say they are not racist.

    And there are people who question the Civil Rights Act and say they are not racist.

    One thing that can be said for both of them is that they stick to principle.

    1. Doesn’t it depend on what the criticism is?

    2. Denying something that happened in history, where there is documented proof and actual survivors is completely different than questioning a law passed by congress.

      Also, by the tone of the comments and conversations on here it seems that most everyone here isn’t against the CRA, just the part that restricts business.

      1. Revisionist history requires only that you accept the most obvious facts, reject all other facts, and present your interpretation as as well-established fact.

        This is what Stossel is doing, in disagreement with most historians.

        1. Which part of his argument? And which historians?

  36. Why stop with Stossel? They need to protest Curves next! We can’t promote sexism!

  37. Oh, my, there are a lot of trolls in here. None of their arguments seem particularly compelling. I’ll take Tony on his worst day over most of these trolls.

  38. A challenge to Stossel: please provide a list of every business you have every boycotted for racism. I quadruple-dog-dare you to PROVE how well the “free market” really works in this situation.

    1. Chad, I pentuple-poodle-dare you to point out a company that you would consider to be racist these days.

      And don’t cop out and name any country clubs because John Stossel probably would be barred from entering those himself.

      Ready, set, go!

      1. Denny’s is racist.

        1. And their business was hurt quite a bit when that little story came out. The free market at work!

          1. No. Business hurt quite a bit is just a vague notion. A real solution would have been nondiscrimination training.

            Even after the class-action lawsuit of 94, there were still a lot of notable incidents at Denny’s, including one in 97 where a group of 6 Asian-American college students were denied service, thrown out, shouted at with racial epithets, then beaten into unconsciousness by a group of white men (the incident was stopped when some blacks who were denied service there helped out the asians by pulling the white people off). It turned out that particular Denny’s didn’t receive any nondiscrimination training, as required by the 1994 lawsuit:

            “In addition, the settlements require that all Denny’s corporate and franchise employees receive nondiscrimination training. The Civil Rights Monitor found that the employees at the Syracuse franchise had not received the necessary training and recommended that the restaurant develop a video-based nondiscrimination training program.”

            It can be found here:


            1. So in other words, your vaunted government action didn’t stop discrimination and racial hatred? Who’d have thought?

              1. lol okay, and your free market didn’t put Denny’s out of business? Who’d have thought?

                1. So let me get this straight. Because Denny’s is still in business despite all of this government action, that proves that government action is a good idea? I’m confused. The fact that the majority of Denny’s customers didn’t leave might have something to do with the fact that they viewed reports of racism at Denny’s with skepticism or just didn’t care.

                  1. I don’t get it. If a shop owner unlawfully detains you for shoplifting, and the courts find in your favor and compensates you, this is somehow a government failure?

                    1. That’s a good point, but if you are detained for shoplifting by a store and sue, you can sue for false imprisonment, which deprives you of your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (although in this case the culprit is Wal-mart, not the federal government) as well as your right to free motion within society (as you would likely to be leaving the store when said detainment occurred). You would be well within your rights to do this.

                      Note the difference here. The store has infringed on your negative rights. You have not exerted any positive right on the store which it refused to recognize. That is the reason this is a false equivalence on your part.

                      Now if, after you had been accused of shoplifting, even though the case had been dropped, you were advised that you were no longer welcome as a customer of that store, you went in there anyway, they would be well within their legal rights to ask you to leave, because they chose to not do business with you.

                      But here’s the thing: after said false accusation, you would likely never have the wish to go into that store again to give them your money. Moreover, you would likely tell your friends and associates the same thing. The store would be hurt financially by you and your friends not shopping there anymore.

                      Your contention is that government fining Denny’s millions of dollars and sending all manner of investigators around was a significant improvement over a market based solution. I am contending that it didn’t do anything more. If, as appears to be supported by the evidence here, Denny’s continued to be racist despite government’s intervention, what good was that intervention?

  39. I once worked with a woman who was the picture of a typical progressive. She seriously argued that people – individuals – do not have the right to harbor intolerant thoughts, opinions or views. This is a person who would advocate prosecution of “thought” crimes.

    1. I have to add that Chad and a few others would likely advocate these same sorts of views. They are big free thinkers except when it come to thoughts they don’t approve of.

    2. That’s silly, but having the right to have intolerant opinions is not the same as government sanctioning intolerant practices. In this country’s context–maybe not others–not requiring integration meant sanctioning segregation. The natural state of things can be intolerable. I would go so far to say that public schools should openly promote tolerance, because racial oppression and animus in any society is such an obvious fucking bad thing.

      1. Then not interfering with my intolerant thoughts is “sanctioning” intolerance.

      2. Tony,
        How many times does it need to be brought to your attention that segregation was mandated by LAW.

        Not requiring integration did not mean sanctioning segregation. Jim Crow laws meant sanctioning segregation. That sanction was removed. It was replaced with another intrusive government sanction.

        The point being made here is that government should not sanction segregation OR integration, and that it should be up to the individual to decide who they are associating with.

        This is not a difficult concept, or am I missing something?

  40. Gentlemen, set your comments to liveblog.

  41. I don’t think John gets how to wear bling.

  42. This just in: Paul Ryan wants people to pay more taxes.

  43. Arthur thinks he’s on a first name basis with Congressman Ryan.

  44. As goes Wisconsin townhalls, so goes the nation.

  45. Wait, is this a repeat episode of Stossel? Was he fired for racism?

  46. Terrible. I already blogged this show. What a gyp (for all of you).

  47. Stossel is only half right.

    “Fight bigotry without government” means fighting leftist bigots who want to discriminate against people who own business.

    Far from praising Stossel, you all should be criticizing him for kowtowing to the left.

  48. I don’t get what it is you guys don’t get about this.

    Yeah you’re all correct about property rights, based on your a priori and axiomatic thinking. But the world is NOT a priori and axiomatic. There is actual history. And for more than 100 years all the land surveyed in America went to whites and not blacks, and in general blacks were prevented from gaining any capital. So you can SAY that not having title 2 in the CRA would have created a free and equal world for blacks, but that would NOT be true in practice. Whites had basically ALL the economic power in the 1960’s South, blacks had none. The vast majority of the capital and real estate which give people economic power and freedom belonged to whites.

    Not to mention that the klan could have been used to continue to enforce a kind of Jim Crow – if integrating a business is only an OPTION and not a requirement, then only a few businesses would try doing so. The klan can’t attack every business, but they could attack a few in certain localities. And that’s not much of a hypothetical, given the klan’s history.

    1. The point being that libertarianism doesn’t simplistically applied doesn’t produce libertarian results in a world that largely ISN’T LIBERTARIAN. Sometimes, 200 years of UN-LIBERTARIAN history, of oppression working just one way, unblanaces the world too much for a simplistic form of libertarianism to actually create freedom and equality for all.

      If you have a piling, and it’s sinking into the soil becuase of too much weight, you take off the weight and then the piling stops sinking. But it’s still deeper in the muck than it should be. You have to actually pull the piling back up to bring it back to normal.

    2. Give it up. Libertarians believe the solution to every problem is doing nothing, while most people believe doing nothing results in nothing getting done.

      1. and who do you think is right?

        1. As someone mentioned on here before, Denny’s was a well-known racist chain until they were sued:


          1. So your “solution”, if I’m reading your article correctly, is that by suing Denny’s, now this “formerly” racist chain is still in business, but is now employing a bunch more dark skinned folk in its high paying jobs? I’m sure all those racists have now seen the error of their ways, and all of those black people that were formerly turned away now have their God given right to eat bad, non nutritious food at a restaurant where people despise them protected! Good job!

            Wouldn’t the easier solution have been to just stop patronizing Denny’s? There are plenty of other crap serving establishments that would have been glad to take that business.

            1. What you say, to stop patronizing Denny’s and go to some other establishment that would be glad to take that business, is a vague solution. There may or may not be another establishment nearby (Denny’s is 24 hours), Denny’s may or may not go out of business, etc.

              Such vague assurances are not as concrete as having the law on your side.

              1. According to the link above to the story about continued racist incidents at Denny’s, it seems the law on your side was also a vague solution.

                1. ?

                  Making murder a crime doesn’t stop murder, but you hope it can serve as a deterrent, and that the perpetrator receives some sort of punishment.

                  1. That’s not a valid comparison and you know it. Murder deprives someone of their right to life. Making someone wait an usually long time to get a table or prepay for their meal deprives someone of…what exactly?

                    Prohibition didn’t stop the sale and consumption of alcohol, but I’m sure if you’d been around then you would have argued that it should have been kept, as we still had murder around.

              2. “Such vague assurances are not as concrete as having the law on your side.”

                You’re right. There’s nothing more concrete than a government gun in your face, a boot on your neck, a prison cell, etc.

    3. You really should go research this historical topic before you start typing. Your information is bad. The reason all of the power and money belonged to whites (and that’s not strictly true, by the way) is that the government worked actively to keep it that way. Businesses that did not want to go to the expense of having a separate colored dining room, restroom, or water fountain were told that they couldn’t do that because it was the law. Don’t you get the point here? The government was being used in an unjust manner to artificially maintain an unjust system.

      In other words, you are getting the arguments mixed up here. What is being said is that the goal of the Civil Rights Act, to allow persons of color to be free from discrimination in association, was laudable, but that the same objectives could have been met through other means. You seem to refuse to consider that there might be any other way. The corollary to that, of course, is that using governmental force is the same thing that brought about the injustices you complain of, but you seem to be fine when it’s used for purposes you deem noble. Our point is that government force, by its very nature, is always liable to being used unjustly and arbitrarily.

      By the way, your statement that for one hundred years all the land surveyed in America went exclusively to whites is just patently wrong.

      1. You missed my point entirely. I understand that the favoritism towards whites was governmentally-propagated. What I’m saying is that the fact that HAD happened created a very unbalanced world, even if the civil rights act were passed without title 2 and everybody was THEORETICALLY equal. The past 150 years had skewed the economic power. You could get rid of governmental discrimination, but in the private sphere the whites had all the power.

        In other words, you say that black people could also discriminate against white people. Well that would be “even” or “fair”, except that black people didn’t have shit to discriminate with.

        Not having title 2 in the ’60’s would not have resulted in a fair and equal world for blacks and you know it. They would have tons of trouble doing everyday things that most people take for granted, and would still be getting publicly socially shat on, and you know it.

        1. As opposed to the fair and equal world that it has created? It hasn’t remotely done that. It seems that the arguments here are “well, it would have been worse without it”, but ask any black person and they’ll tell you that discrimination still exists everywhere despite your wonderful law. Racists just got better at hiding their bigotry. Your argument is that racism and inequality would have continued without title II when in fact is has continued unabated despite its presence.

          1. yeah, this country is so racist that it just elected a black president.


            1. To use your (idiotic) line of reasoning, Blanche Kelso Bruce was elected to the United States Senate from the state of Mississippi in 1875, therefore Mississippi was not racist.

              1. it’s a little fucking different when the entire country is voting for one guy

                even the state-by-state breakdown is pretty even, If I remember correctly

            2. If the country is mostly not racist, Edwin, then do we need Title II of the CRA anymore?

          2. and the point wasn’t to end racism itself, it was to stop its practice from screwing with the lives of a significant chunk of this country.

            And This country HAS made a lot of progress since the passing of the civil rights act.

            Actually, that’s the best argument right there. It’s worked, and not just in ending discrimination and creating an equal world for blacks. All the philosophical babbling in the world won’t convince me away from a real track record. Usually it’s liberals/socialists who argue against what history has clearly shown – but liberdouchians are doing the same here.

            1. “It’s worked, and not just in ending discrimination and creating an equal world for blacks. All the philosophical babbling in the world won’t convince me away from a real track record.”

              Edwin, do you know any black people? Maybe you just ask someone of color whether racism exists or if they feel that there is no more discrimination and they now live in an equal world.

              Where is your proof that this act is what caused discrimination to subside? Government statistics? I believe you are assuming that because something precedes an event, it must be the cause. I would contend that the country was already headed on the road to integration and less discrimination well before the passing of the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, the act was a reaction to the success of the civil rights movement, not the cause of it.

              1. “I would contend that the country was already headed on the road to integration and less discrimination well before the passing of the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, the act was a reaction to the success of the civil rights movement, not the cause of it.

                so you’re agreeing with me that it has a good track record?

                Also, first you’re saying there’s tons of racism, then you’re saying the country was well on its way to integration well before the civil rights act. Which is it?

                1. No, I’m disagreeing with you. I’m stating that the gains you attribute to the act were happening anyway, therefore the act was not the cause as you maintained.

                  And racism is not the same as segregation, just as a lack of racism is not the same as integration. Let’s make that clear. There is less institutional (read: government sanctioned) racism today, although it is by no means completely gone. There is still plenty of racism, though its practice has become more clever. Please do not create a false dichotomy here.

  49. What I find humorous in all of this is that out of all of the things you could be taking a stand on, as libertarians, THIS is it?


    Fucking tone deaf.

    1. the sad thing is this is just the tip of the libertarianism craziness iceberg.


      skip to about 2/3 of the way in

      1. Context. What is this? Who is on it? I don’t make a habit of blindly clicking links, even to mp3 files…

      2. LOL Wow… disregard my first question, I googled FTL and figured out what it was.

        And I skip in 2/3 of the way, and what do I hear? Making a libertarian argument for having sex with children… WOW…

        …and getting very defensive about it! My god…. LOL

        1. Your intellectual dishonestly is amazing. I can find socialists and their ilk making all sorts of arguments too, but I chalk that up to that individual, instead of smearing the whole movement with that brush. I prefer to debate honestly the issue at hand. It’s a pity that you seem unable or unwilling to do so. It’s a reflection of your mental weakness and likely the concurrent weakness of your position.

          1. A laxative will help you get rid of that full of shit syndrome

        2. It would be Obama’s appointee that’s on record praising NAMBLA, not Ron or Rand Paul.

          Just because some dipshit who calls himself libertarian says he ought to be able to diddle kids, doesn’t make him a libertarian or correct.

          1. This dipshit who calls himself a libertarian is one of the leaders of the Free State Movement, and runs Free Talk Radio.

            If you don’t like his views, fine, but you don’t get to claim who the True Scotsmen are because you disagree with someone.

            1. +1, bingo

              we keep telling you that libertarians’ purist philosophy leads them to the purest nonsense. It’s a big tendency in the among libertarians. We’re giving you some pretty damning evidence there, and you’re just explaining it away and being defensive.

              Admit it. The libertarian movement has an overly large share of crazies for a political philosophy. I’m a libertarian and I can admit that. In fact you HAVE to admit it and differentiate yourself from the crazies if you’re ever going to convince the general public on your principles. Remember, it’s YOU who owe the public an explanation on your principles, not the other way around.

              1. So because a guy runs a radio station and is “among the leaders” of some group, he represents libertarianism as a philosophy? That’s like me finding the head of EarthFirst and saying he represents all Democrats. Sure, I’ll agree with you that the Libertarian party does attract its share of kooks, but endorsing the philosophy of libertarianism does not mean one is a registered member of the Libertarian party. I did not vote Libertarian in the last election and probably won’t in the next one as the party cannot seem to nominate a candidate that is worthy of my support. That doesn’t mean that I can’t have libertarian principles nor does it mean that I shouldn’t be discussing those principles, even if they are at times contrary to the political consensus of the moment.

                1. you’re very good at completely missing my point.

                  What I’m trying to tell you is you have to admit that libertarianism draws a disproportionately LARGE number of crazies if you want people to listen to you.

                  Also, that if those crazies are crazy because they take the basic premises of libertarianism and follow it to the most extreme ends, then you have to consider that maybe you’re doing the same thing. You’re being amazingly narrow-minded. I’m giving you a perfectly good libertarian explanation of how title 2 of the civil rights act does indeed increase freedom and equality (an argument that another libertarian also came up with, by the way), and numerous libertarian writers have defended title 2, but you just won’t hear it at all. At all. Insanely close-minded and stubborn. (And don’t try to turn it around – I am a libertarian, and I have considered the purist position, but eventually I grew up and realized the world is a little more complex)

                  1. The only thing I’ve seen you do, frankly, is resort to name calling. You have offered very little in the way of evidence, other than one video showing some crazy person who calls himself a libertarian. I have seen you present no evidence concerning title 2 other than your (frankly baffling) gross assertion that it has created a world where there is no discrimination and every person is equal.

                    The fact that there are kooks out there who call themselves libertarians does not invalidate the philosophy, nor does it mean we should not engage in debate over the various principles of libertarianism. Nor, might I add, does it mean that you yourself are a libertarian, just because you happen to call yourself one.

                    Personally I don’t believe that any of the things we say here will have any lasting effects, nor do I expect them to influence any member of the public. I come here because I wish to be entertained and because I enjoy taking up a contrary position just to see what discussion might come out of it. Note the handle…it’s not really an accident.

                    1. “The only thing I’ve seen you do, frankly, is resort to name calling. ”

                      Really, where? I’ve done nothing of the sort, I’ve brought up serious points.

                      “I have seen you present no evidence concerning title 2 other than your (frankly baffling) gross assertion that it has created a world where there is no discrimination and every person is equal.

                      I haven’t said ANYTHING of the sort. My assertion is that it’s MOSTLY been driven from the public. Public expressions of racism have become damn near taboo as cannibalism.

                      “The fact that there are kooks out there who call themselves libertarians does not invalidate the philosophy, nor does it mean we should not engage in debate over the various principles of libertarianism”

                      Again, never said anything like that. Your reading comprehension is terrible. Go back up and thoroughly read m +1 post. And, like I say there, try thinking outside the box for a minute. For people who are supposedly “pro-freedom”, you liberdouchians (the dogmatic side of the libertarians) are amazingly close- and narrow-minded and intolerant of other opinions. For example, On these comment sections, I’ve been called a fascist for supporting the civil rights act. Only from libertdouchians will you hear such ridiculousness.

                    2. As I recall, you called me an idiot several posts above. That’s name calling where I come from. Not to mention the whole “liberdouchian” smear.

                      “I haven’t said ANYTHING of the sort.”

                      Actually, you did. To whit:

                      “Actually, that’s the best argument right there. It’s worked, and not just in ending discrimination and creating an equal world for blacks. ”

                      “Your reading comprehension is terrible.”

                      I disagree. Based on the above, you seem to be unable to comprehend what you yourself wrote.

                      “My assertion is that it’s MOSTLY been driven from the public. Public expressions of racism have become damn near taboo as cannibalism.”

                      Yes, but again, your evidence is scant that this has anything to do with title 2 of the civil rights act. The last time I checked, public expressions of racism is protected under freedom of expression, not outlawed by title 2, but still looked down upon. The Klan still has the right to march through the streets, but nobody pays attention to them.

                      “For people who are supposedly “pro-freedom”, you liberdouchians (the dogmatic side of the libertarians) are amazingly close- and narrow-minded and intolerant of other opinions.”

                      I have never once expressed any intolerance of your opinion, just my lack of agreement. I fully support and recognize your right to believe whatever you wish, but there is no duty incumbent upon me to be in accord with it.

    2. YOU guys on the Left started this bogus rehashing of something that was off the table for ‘debate’ (if there ever was one) in 1964 as soon as the CRA passed! You can thank your asshole friends in the Courier-Journal and that jackass Jack Conway for bringing this up, rather than focusing on the REAL issues!

      Who the fuck CARES what Rand Paul’s views are on the CRA?? That was passed long ago, and he has never said he’s against the entire thing, nor has he indicated EVER that he would work to repeal it if elected. This is just a distraction by Kentucky liberals and Dems and the media to try to derail Rand’s campaign the easiest way possible, so they don’t have to actually CAMPAIGN and convince voters of their merits of THEIR OWN ideas.


  50. There is an ilk of humanity which thrives on discord and lives to pit people against each other. Those perpetuating the notions of race and racial consciousness are those sorts of people. There are people who have made their public careers out of this sort of thing – stirring the pot and creating animosity where none exists.

    1. I don’t know what you’re talking about, but you must be a racist.

  51. Keep it going! We can break 1000 by the end of the day! We might even exceed the DJIA!

  52. If you libertarians place a clearly visible sign on your shop that specifies who may enter (e.g., NO DOGS, NO BLACKS), then I might be inclined to say private establishments can discriminate anyone specified on their visible sign.

    So this is a realistic proposed solution, something you all fail to offer. Anyone want to say what’s wrong with it, or propose a better solution? This fixes all your lame counterexamples about men wanting to join women’s gyms (lol are you libertarians too weak to go to men’s gym, after getting b**** slapped by some meathead?).

    1. This post made no sense whatsoever. That’s exactly what was proposed. Are you having trouble understanding it?

      1. Then we are in agreement. Stossel doesn’t need to speak out against discrimination, since the restaurant will already have a sign, and those who still want to eat there are discriminatory, so would not be convinced by Stossel anyways.

        1. That is the whole point. I still don’t think you get it. If the restaurant discriminates, not only will Stossel not go there, he will urge his friends not to go there. The whole idea is the economics of discrimination don’t work out so well for the discriminator.

          If you go back into your history, discrimination was done by government through the law because without the law forcing separation of the races, too many establishments did not discriminate. Hence the law forced that to happen and the civil rights act overturned those laws.

          Still, it is hard to see how a single restaurant would be covered under the ever expanding commerce clause.

          1. Are you sure about your history?

            At least two writers for this website don’t think the laws were written because otherwise discrimination would vanish overnight:


            Just saying.

          2. The idea that you can take America’s racist past, separate it into its people and the government, and say only the government was racist and that the people were not racist but were forced to be racist by the government, is silly. America was racist, not just the government.

            1. But only the government can be used to compel racist behavior from those who wouldn’t otherwise behave that way. That’s the point you’re missing.

              1. And who is to say they’d otherwise behave that way? What historical evidence is there? Is government your excuse for all the lynchings?

                Even if blacks and whites would be holding hands were it not for the big bad government, if whites wanted to end it, they could: when is the point that doing nothing while injustices are occurring=complicity?

                1. “And who is to say they’d otherwise behave that way? What historical evidence is there?”

                  The history of the civil rights movement, which was well on its way despite the lack of government support and at times its blatant hostility. The desegregation of businesses that had already occurred in places without the necessity of government intervention. There’s your evidence.

                  “Is government your excuse for all the lynchings?”

                  Actually it played a very large role, as local governments turned a blind eye to their responsibility to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens, including those of color. If you are a bigot and know that you will not be convicted of murder should you go hang someone, wouldn’t you be far more apt to do it? The government should have fulfilled its responsibility and started locking up those who perpetrated crimes of violence. Instead, it turned a blind eye and allowed them to continue. Again, failure of government to do its legitimate job.

                  “Even if blacks and whites would be holding hands were it not for the big bad government, if whites wanted to end it, they could: when is the point that doing nothing while injustices are occurring=complicity?”

                  People, including whites, were dying as part of the movement. People were marching, holding sit-ins, and boycotting businesses. That’s not “nothing”.

    2. What have you got against dogs?

  53. Mr. Stossel,

    I personally believe there is a vast difference between culture and race. The law should reflect that. We have President Roosevelt’s speech about welcoming people – to assimilate fully into the culture of America. Hyphenated nationality descriptions were specifically called out as unwelcome and detrimental to the nation and the individual. I cannot find in the Constitution a protection for culture – there is no tolerance under the Constitution for cultural differences. Culture, unlike racial heritage, is a choice. A personal choice.

    If one chooses to break the law, that choice is not protected; if they choose to honor values contrary to the prevailing culture of America, that, too, is unprotected.

    Discriminating on the basis of culture, rather than race, at times draws a fine line. But the definition of values, the role of property values and character, and corruption, in the culture on chooses to express, should be honored – and the individual choosing to vary from mainstream culture should face consequences for choosing to be “different”.

    America in times past was known as a “melting pot”, blending races and cultures to form a richer blending than any of those coming together in peace. We have our differences, and many of those differences enrich us all. But in order for society to grow, to assimilate, to evaluate what works better – we have to be able to choose, and to change our minds.

    I haven’t seen any lawsuits granting support of the NAACP to other racial groups.

  54. Haters gonna hate.

  55. Government, under our constitution, has no right to regulate this sort of thing. Anyone who believes in the principles upon which America was built, surely also believes that power should lie in the hands of the people. Government is but a necessary evil; nothing more. It should NEVER have become as almighty as it is today, and wouldn’t have if not for corrupt politicians who allowed its degradation over time.

    One thing that no one wants to admit — though I must state plainly — is that we’re already bordering on communism. Our country has a central bank, which Lenin said was “90% of communizing a nation.” It’s also the structural equivalent of a main support column for Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Another support beam is the plank which calls for a progressive income tax, which we also have. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

    These two main planks alone tell me we’re living in a communist state, but there are tons of additional government programs and policies which infringe upon our rights, just as the planks in the Communist Manifesto do. People ignore it or turn a blind eye so as not to have to face reality; a reality which clearly shows how very close we are to becoming the first communist nation to believe that we’re actually free. Have the powers-that-be taken past failed versions of communism, and perfected it on America over time? People need to wake up!

    Check out this article on TruthOffering.com which shows you just how impinged upon our liberties are with the planks of the Communist Manifesto as your guideline:


    1. I’ll have what he’s having.

      1. I thought you had. 🙂

  56. It’s not about race, it’s about being able to push people around. That’s what all of modern liberalism is about. Period.

    1. @Jeffersonian,
      They are the most moral people to ever set foot on this earth (TM), dammit !! and their morality wants them to push others around.

      Who said crazy right wing Christians are the only moralists who want to the impose their beliefs on every one else ?

      The Leftists have been doing this since God knows when…

    2. I suppose having a law against pushing people around is itself pushing people around.

      Great philosophical insight!

      Keep it up libertarians.

  57. Does the Congressional Black Caucus have a position on race-based memberships?

  58. Just finished reading “We the Living” – Ayn Rand’s first published book and a heart rending account of an individual’s right to live life as one sees it best.

    There are quite a few comments here that show why Rand fought so furiously for what she believed in, even if she was rarely successful.people who dont agree with the concept of private property dont always exist only in communist countries – many of them exist right here in the US – sad, but true.

    1. Yeah, many of them living on reservations.

  59. I support the right to discriminate but I would ask this. If I trespass on the land of a man whose ancestors stole it from mine am I initiating force? In every country I know of the land was stolen from some people or other not by the enclosure of idle land imagined by libertarians. I am libertarian but I don’t see how anyone can own land as no one created it, except for reclaimed land. They should have indefinite leasehold in return for paying a land tax, and that should be the only tax.

    1. Do you believe that aboriginal groups should be able to sue for government owned lands? And what about lands owned by private citizens that were stolen in the past like you say?

      Taking libertarian views on property rights to the most logical conclusion, what is the conclusion on this matter?

      Some would argue that the fact that a white guy and a black guy can eat at the same place is one of the great things about America (and other countries as well). But if our purity to the principles we believe in supersedes that and forces us not to look the other way, then this stolen property is something we have to address too.

    2. Your point is much more valid and question-raising than liberdouchians would like to admit.

  60. John, your an idiot. You really think private businesses would voluntarily be open to all? You live in la la land. You assume people have the organizational capacity to boycott all racist joints. Not so. People get tired easily. Also, plenty of business owners are quite satisfied not maxing profits and will cater to a bigoted crowd in order to sustain stable revenues – like a golf club or a small corner bar. The free-market fantasy you have is that all businesses owners will be non-discriminatory in order to maximize profits. That may work well for large chains where boycotts may be effective. But remember how you free-market worshipers also love small mom & pop outlets and the masses will have no leverage over their discriminatory ways. That’s the whole point of government – to institutionalize good moral rules that people cannot do on their own in an nondiscriminatory manner.

    1. You won’t have to do any boycotting: Stossel said he’ll take care of that.

      I don’t see why almost all civil rights groups are so stupid that on the one thing they study, discrimination, they’re too dumb to see that a discriminatory establishment is as good as dead, so that “a discriminatory establishment” is an OXYMORON.

      This guy Stossel, who is busy refuting climate scientists who spend all their life studying the climate, while making his television shows, pointing out how America is stupid, correcting people’s history, will add speaking out against discrimination to his plate.

      Having Stossel on your side is well-worth allowing the possibility of segregation to occur, because Stossel won’t let that happen, and then some.

      Stossel wants to crush discrimination with his mighty fists, so in order to do so he must allow discrimination. Why can’t people see that?

    2. “That’s the whole point of government – to institutionalize good moral rules that people cannot do on their own in an nondiscriminatory manner.”

      There are so many things wrong with this statement I don’t even know where to start.

  61. The People should have the right to hire whomever they want for whatever reason they want. They should also have the right to accept the custom or not accept the custom of whomever they want for whatever reason they want.

    But just because the people have the right to be racist, they DON’T have the right to keep that fact a secret in their public dealings. Don’t want to hire or promote Jews? Fine, but you better make it perfectly clear that your firm is prejudiced against jews. To actually hire and then fail to treat fairly someone from a group you were prejudiced against, or even to waste their time going through the motions of allowing them to apply or interviewing for your firm because they were unaware of your prejudice…sounds like fraud to me.

    1. I’m not entirely sure which gives more freedom in practice: to allow discrimination or not.

      You have the freedom of joining whatever political party you want, and according to the law, an employer can’t hold that against you.

      You can debate whether people will discriminate against race, but with the polarization of politics, people might definitely discriminate against political affiliation.

      What can be more free for an individual than holding the ugliest views possible, but not being denied any services because of it?

      The next time an Arab terrorist bombs some place, we’ll see just how racially tolerant we are to Arab Americans, whether people will deny them service. If a white American bombs some place, there definitely won’t be discrimination against whites.

      The effects of a repeal on the CRA would probably result in a migration of minorities to leftist states. Is it justified? Maybe, maybe not, but you’ll get defacto segregation of the states, for just the fear of discrimination will drive people to a place where there is less such fear.

      Of course, I’m sure Stossel has thought about this. Minorities have to think about this all the time.

      1. “Maybe, maybe not, but you’ll get defacto segregation of the states, for just the fear of discrimination will drive people to a place where there is less such fear.”

        lol, who knew, that getting a rid of law that stops segregation, would lead to segregation?

    2. lol I think all gift certificates should state carefully the people they discriminate against, before the wrong people buy them! the ultimate faux paus would be giving as a gift to your minority friend a gift certificate to a place that doesn’t serve them!

      and for all you tourists, better plan your itinerary carefully! you don’t want to be a stuck in a foreign country where your money could be worthless.

      great vision of america.

  62. A coffee shop owner in Seattle recently decided to ban cops from his property. Will the liberals be consistent and say that gov’t MUST prevent him from discriminating? …Not likely.

    I have yet to hear of this becoming big news or the Left coming to the Seattle cops’ defense. Isn’t “antidiscrimination”, esp. by gov’t, a GOOD thing, liberals? Just as long as they don’t discriminate among your favored victimhood groups like racial and ethnic minorities, right? Cops are fair game?

  63. lol, and where’s all the BP criticism on this and other libertarian websites? o that’s right, criticism of BP is unamerican.

    just as long it’s not your favored business groups…but government is fair game.


  65. I’m not exactly sure why this is a “liberals” thing. The overwhelming majority of Americans, not just the liberal minority, think your ideas are racist, or ridiculous.

    Is it a wonder that they think you’re racist? How are they supposed to know that you’re just this ridiculous? Take it as a compliment that they considered you racist rather than how ridiculous you really are: at least they gave you the benefit of the doubt of having some intelligence.

  66. lol, they just want to attack liberals.

    even Stossel wasn’t dumb enough to do that on this subject.

    seriously, why would you attack someone for believing a white dude and a black dude should be able to sit in the same restaurant?

    you can disagree with it I suppose, but it’s not like they’re being jerks for believing a white dude should be able to sit with a black dude.

    as far as I can tell rand paul the politician and john stossel the entertainer were smarter than a lot of people here, but in fairness this is a message board so people can and do behave stupidly (or at least more stupidly).

    1. “seriously, why would you attack someone for believing a white dude and a black dude should be able to sit in the same restaurant?”

      Most libertarians agree that they should be able to sit in the same restaurant; they just don’t want to point a gun at the restaurant owner to make that happen.

  67. TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT…..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets.///// VERY QUIETLY Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT ;;;GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.
    Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama
    In a move certain to fuel the debate over Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that , underMmslim Barack Hussein Obama, the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
    This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama Eligibility Questioned,”Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of citizenshMmslim Barack Hussein Obama,citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

    Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter…


    Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

    While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

    So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

    And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over citizensh Mmslim Barack Hussein Obamaip a rather short and simple one.

    Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
    A : Yes, by his own admission.

    Q: What passport did he travel under?
    A: There are only three possibilities.
    1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport,
    2) He traveled with a British passport, or
    3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

    Q: Is it possible that Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
    A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

    Conclusion: When Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

    If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

    Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

    Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

    If you Don’t care that Your President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.

    If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! the commander

  68. John,

    The racism used to be enforced by law and by violence. That’s why it took law and authority to dismantle it. And it could only do so much at that. This is something that is important to millions of people, and you can’t just glance at it sideways and say ‘well, it’s just people being mean. they have a right to be mean.’ You have no idea what you’re talking about, and I wish that you could learn. But I’m not sure you would be willing to make the effort.

  69. The racism used to be enforced by law and by violence. That’s why it took law and authority to dismantle it. And it could only do so much at that. This is something that is important to millions of people, and you can’t just glance at it sideways and say ‘well, it’s just people being mean. they have a right to be mean.’ You have no idea what you’re talking about, and I wish that you could learn. But I’m not sure you would be willing to make the effort.

    masr news

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.