# A land lord and a Marine's guns...



## billc (Aug 7, 2013)

Well, I think the land lord in this case should be able to rent to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants, so if he doesn't want the Marine to have guns in his rental property...I guess the Marine should lose...

However...

I also think that wedding plannners and photographers and land lords should be able to say they don't want to provide services to other people as well, such as gay couples trying to get married and suing photographers who won't work for them...

Soooo...if you support the suing of land lords and wedding photographers who won't provide their services to gays...or others...then this Marine get's to stay because the civil right of the Marine must trump the private property rights of the land lord...right?

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/07/colorado-landlord-to-marine-get-rid-of-your-guns-or-get-out/



> Gut-check time for gun-loving conservatives: We&#8217;re dealing with a private landlord here, not a state actor, in which case does the Marine have any argument that his Second Amendment rights trump the owner&#8217;s property rights? Businesses can ban guns from their premises, no? Why can&#8217;t a landlord?





> Bottom line: The market should handle this. The Marine will, I bet, have no trouble landing a new pad once gun-rights-supporting property owners in the area hear about it. And his current landlord obviously isn&#8217;t keen on the publicity this is getting, per their no-comment to the station. If you&#8217;re going to risk the bad PR involved in a gun ban, especially with someone as sympathetic as an elderly serviceman on the other side, be sure that it&#8217;ll be good for your bottom line.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 7, 2013)

Well, I admire your consistency on this issue, and I mean that sincerely. I don't quite agree (because the landlord has a legitimate worry about legal liability if someone is shot on his property) but if you view gun ownership as I know you do then I see the logic.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 7, 2013)

I think anyone and everyone should be allowed to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all.  Only exception would be Govt entity like police fire EMS education .........


----------



## arnisador (Aug 7, 2013)

I think I'm glad we no longer have segregated restaurants.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I think I'm glad we no longer have segregated restaurants.



If someone hates you for no other reason then the color of your skin then why do you want to give them your money?  I'd rather know upfront where I'm not wanted so I can not give them my money.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 7, 2013)

From the point of view of one person, I get that. But the effect on society is greater than that.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 8, 2013)

arnisador said:


> From the point of view of one person, I get that. But the effect on society is greater than that.


I guess but there would be plenty of places that would desegregate themselves to put profit above hate.  Maybe not but I would think eventually it would happen.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2013)

> I think I'm glad we no longer have segregated restaurants.



The actual problem was that back then there was a law mandating it.  ( I won't bring up that the democrats wanted that law...)   I have no problem with businesses, privately owned, serving or not serving whoever they want.  If the nation of islam decides not to serve whites, or a chain of klan restaraunts doesn't want to serve minorities or Catholics...that is fine by me...as long as the federal and state governments aren't forcing them to do it.  Private property is exactly that, private.  The market will reward or punish those decisions by the success or failure of those business models...if the market is free and people can serve minorities or whites if they chose to do it...then they will make money from that decision and they will be successful.  If they chose to not serve minorities or whites...then those customers will simply go to the restaurants that do serve them...

Government services should not be allowed to do that since it belongs to everyone.



> I guess but there would be plenty of places that would desegregate  themselves to put profit above hate.  Maybe not but I would think  eventually it would happen.



That was the very reason they had to make it a law...so that the businesses that did refuse service wouldn't suffer the economic consequences...because all businesses had to segregate their services by law...so the market wasn't allowed to function.

From wikipedia...



> *History*
> 
> After Congress passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867, the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1870 providing the right to vote, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875  forbidding racial segregation in accommodations, Federal occupation  troops in the South assured blacks the right to vote and to elect their  own political leaders. The Reconstruction amendments asserted the  supremacy of the national state and the formal equality under the law of  everyone within it.[SUP][4][/SUP]  However this radical Reconstruction era would collapse because of  multidimensional racialism related to the spread of democratic idealism  (progressivism). What began as region wide passage of &#8216;Jim Crow&#8217; segregation laws  that focused on issues of equal access to public activities and  facilities would by 1910 have spread throughout the south, mandating the  segregation of whites and blacks in the public sphere.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP]:117[/SUP]
> The collapse of the reconstruction amendments and what alluded to  racial segregation was also a political move that emerged in the  Southern states. Many of the white voters in the south were farmers and  opposed to the black man voting for racial reasons, and also because  they objected to the possibility of their vote being employed against  them.[SUP][6][/SUP]  This was during a time of agrarian unrest and the uncertainty of the  political importance of the agricultural sector of the south.
> ...



Notice how the article fails to mention the term "Republican."  The Radical Republicans were the ones who pushed reconstruction...the democrats created the jim crow laws to create legal segregation in the south...and backed it up with violence...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 8, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I think anyone and everyone should be allowed to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all.  Only exception would be Govt entity like police fire EMS education .........



I like that idea except when it is applied to prevent a class of people from being able to get the service, as opposed to an individual.



ballen0351 said:


> If someone hates you for no other reason then the color of your skin then why do you want to give them your money?  I'd rather know upfront where I'm not wanted so I can not give them my money.



But suppose you were allowed to go into a store and buy products, but not sit at the lunch counter, or use a "white only" rest room?  And suppose there were few if any stores catering to your class by members of your class, because they were successfully prevented from doing so by people and businesses not of your class?



ballen0351 said:


> I guess but there would be plenty of places that would desegregate themselves to put profit above hate.  Maybe not but I would think eventually it would happen.



As I mentioned above, why would they if it could made difficult for you to take your business elsewhere?  

When I was young in the 40s and 50s, I saw those things happening.  Where I grew up, the separate but equal schools were in effect.  The Separate part was pretty easy to implement.  Equal was never quite achieved.  I give credit to the black parents and teachers that mostly ensured their students got as equal an education as possible.  BTW, does anyone remember that blacks were called colored then, when being polite?

Businesses like department stores would either not allow blacks to sit at the counter and order lunch, or have maybe two or three seats at one end, blocked off by a railing, where they could sit.  So they could eat, but service was usually grudging at best.  I never saw it, but I understand in the deep south, many eating establishments would sell to blacks, but require them to go to the back door of the kitchen to order food.  I have heard people bragg about how good they were because well, blacks had to go to the back, but they got the same food.

After the 1954 court decision, where I lived, the schools were integrated immediately.  Separate rest rooms and separate lunch counter areas disappeared as well.  Not everyone liked it, but the law was complied with.  There were still enough racial jokes to go around, but people began to change.  Had it not been for the 1954 decision, who knows how long it would have taken for people to become more accepting? 

And it didn't happen everywhere as quickly as where I grew up.  I was astounded when I got to Fayetteville, NC in late 1960.  I got off the train and walked into the waiting room adjacent to the car I was on, to get some information.  As I walked to the ticket counter, I noted only black faces and heard some telling me "You don't belong here boy."  The ticket seller quickly told me to get out of there to the other side where I belonged.

And don't think everyone believed that blacks should be treated badly.  But there was enough prevailing attitude from a large enough portion of the population, that they would not risk being ostracized as individuals, nor boycotted as businesses, to do anything that looked like they thought it was wrong to discriminate.

So balen0351, while a small and hidden libertarian part of me wants to agree with you, I cannot.  Humans aren't that altruistic yet.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 8, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I like that idea except when it is applied to prevent a class of people from being able to get the service, as opposed to an individual.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But again why would you want to give these people your money?  I'd you force them to serve you then your supporting and giving your money to people that hate you.  I'd rater know they hate me and seek service elsewhere.  
I'll have to find the story about Oprah just last week or few weeks ago in Sweden and walked into a store to shop.  The clerk refused to help her saying she couldn't afford anything.  Oprah said at first she wanted to pull out her credit card and buy the entire store but then she decided she didn't want to give them her money.  
That's kinda how I think.  
As Bill said the only reason stores got away with segregation was because it was the law.  If the Govt stays out of private affairs and say Denny's banned minorities how long would they stay in business?  Not long.  Look at Paula Dean.  She's lost almost all her endorsements and all the big stores dropped her products for something she said 20 years ago.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 8, 2013)

billc said:


> The actual problem was that back then there was a law mandating it.  ( I won't bring up that the democrats wanted that law...)   I have no problem with businesses, privately owned, serving or not serving whoever they want.  If the nation of islam decides not to serve whites, or a chain of klan restaraunts doesn't want to serve minorities or Catholics...that is fine by me...as long as the federal and state governments aren't forcing them to do it.  Private property is exactly that, private.  The market will reward or punish those decisions by the success or failure of those business models...if the market is free and people can serve minorities or whites if they chose to do it...then they will make money from that decision and they will be successful.  If they chose to not serve minorities or whites...then those customers will simply go to the restaurants that do serve them...
> 
> Government services should not be allowed to do that since it belongs to everyone.
> 
> ...



Please note my answer to ballen0351 above.  Businesses will indeed find a way to protect themselves.  It doesn't have to be by allowing equality.  It can be by forcing more inequality toward competing businesses.  That worked pretty well for a lot of them.

I am conservative in more things than I am liberal (but I have both aspects).  So I tend to agree with more republican ideals than democratic ideals.  But your choice of the words "radical republicans" is unfortunately correct in a way your probably didn't intend.  They enforced their ideals on the South with anger and vigor, and a small seasoning of illegal acts.  Many southern republicans didn't like themselves associated with those actions by party name.  They defected to the democrats in droves.  But many still held their republican values, except many still didn't agree with emancipation.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 8, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> But again why would you want to give these people your money?  I'd you force them to serve you then your supporting and giving your money to people that hate you.  I'd rater know they hate me and seek service elsewhere.
> I'll have to find the story about Oprah just last week or few weeks ago in Sweden and walked into a store to shop.  The clerk refused to help her saying she couldn't afford anything.  Oprah said at first she wanted to pull out her credit card and buy the entire store but then she decided she didn't want to give them her money.
> That's kinda how I think.
> As Bill said the only reason stores got away with segregation was because it was the law.  If the Govt stays out of private affairs and say Denny's banned minorities how long would they stay in business?  Not long.  Look at Paula Dean.  She's lost almost all her endorsements and all the big stores dropped her products for something she said 20 years ago.



You didn't read my answer to you well I guess.  Or maybe I didn't explain it as well as I should.  There was no law in the state I grew up in saying blacks had to be segregated.  And there was no law against it either.  The US constitution forbade it.  But that wasn't how it played out.  The US Supreme court said separate but equal wasn't segregation.  As I mentioned, separate was easy.  Equal just never seemed to work out.  

What you say Oprah wanted would not have been possible in many places in the US when I was young.  Where else were they to go? Do you think they preferred to go to stores that treated them as second class citizens?

Now it is different, because enough people have peacefully, or forcefully, found ways to make it different.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 8, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> You didn't read my answer to you well I guess.  Or maybe I didn't explain it as well as I should.  There was no law in the state I grew up in saying blacks had to be segregated.  And there was no law against it either.  The US constitution forbade it.  But that wasn't how it played out.  The US Supreme court said separate but equal wasn't segregation.  As I mentioned, separate was easy.  Equal just never seemed to work out.
> 
> What you say Oprah wanted would not have been possible in many places in the US when I was young.  Where else were they to go? Do you think they preferred to go to stores that treated them as second class citizens?
> 
> Now it is different, because enough people have peacefully, or forcefully, found ways to make it different.


 
Times are different and people wouldn't stand for that behavior today this isnt the 40's 50's or 60's.  If a company in today's times refused service due to race they would be shut down not from Govt intervention but due to public outcry. In the 40s and 50s segregation was not only legal but encouraged by the Govt.  
I just dont understand why anyone would want to give money to place that hates you.  Not only do you give them your hard earned cash but there is no telling what they are doing to your food behind closed doors.  Id just rather know where to go and where not to.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 8, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Times are different and people wouldn't stand for that behavior today this isnt the 40's 50's or 60's.  If a company in today's times refused service due to race they would be shut down not from Govt intervention but due to public outcry. In the 40s and 50s segregation was not only legal but encouraged by the Govt.
> I just dont understand why anyone would want to give money to place that hates you.  Not only do you give them your hard earned cash but there is no telling what they are doing to your food behind closed doors.  Id just rather know where to go and where not to.



Because we have law to back that up, it probably wouldn't happen as quickly, nor peacefully, if at all.  But I personally believe there are still enough people who would like to see the "old" ways, that they would indeed try to change it back to the old ways if they could.  Hopefully, as you say, they couldn't.  But I wouldn't want to test that.  Not just yet.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 8, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Because we have law to back that up, it probably wouldn't happen as quickly, nor peacefully, if at all.  But I personally believe there are still enough people who would like to see the "old" ways, that they would indeed try to change it back to the old ways if they could.  Hopefully, as you say, they couldn't.  But I wouldn't want to test that.  Not just yet.



So the change isnt real in your opinion.  People are only tolerant because the law says so?  I think a black president disputes that idea.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 8, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So the change isnt real in your opinion.  People are only tolerant because the law says so?  I think a black president disputes that idea.



I didn't say that per se, but I guess you could say I have implied that.  Fair enough.  However, if you remember I mentioned that I lived in times when not everyone agreed with the way blacks were treated.  But many, if not most, weren't willing to stand up and say so, much less act so.  

If there were a strong movement to change our current laws, or even just to ignore them, and if you sprinkle in a little violence, do you think there would be any significant amount of people that would accept movement backward?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 8, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I didn't say that per se, but I guess you could say I have implied that.  Fair enough.  However, if you remember I mentioned that I lived in times when not everyone agreed with the way blacks were treated.  But many, if not most, weren't willing to stand up and say so, much less act so.
> 
> If there were a strong movement to change our current laws, or even just to ignore them, and if you sprinkle in a little violence, do you think there would be any significant amount of people that would accept movement backward?


If they made it legal to discriminate I'm sure some places would change but in general I think most people are beyond that behavior now.  Maybe I give folks too much credit.  I never thought we would see a non-white male president and we do.   I think we have come farther then you give people credit for.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 8, 2013)

To me the point is that we wouldn't be where we are now without the legal changes of the 60s. Look at what happened this year after the Voting Rights Act changes.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2013)

> To me the point is that we wouldn't be where we are now without the legal changes of the 60s. Look at what happened this year after the Voting Rights Act changes.



Yes, look at what happened...we reelected  the first black President...

I don't believe anyone is saying that changes needed to be made, some just think that the law enforcing segregation needed to be ended, but private property rights and freedom of thought, even bad ones should be protected.   The market would correct any problem where a business refused to do business with a particular group, especially as time went on.

By the way, exactly what did happen in your opinion?


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2013)

Update...

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/...rty-Management-s-Gun-Ban-Overturned-By-Owners



> According to Colorado's 9 News,  the station that originally broke the story, Ross Management, was overruled by the property's owners late Wednesday and nixed the property management's gun ban. "The apartments in question are public housing and they didn't give the property manager permission to infringe on individual rights," says 9 News.  The Denver Housing Authority now wants to know if Ross management is attempting to slip other gun bans upon other public housing properties the company manages.





> A controversial gun policy at an apartment complex for seniors has been thrown out after a 9Wants to Know report.
> 
> 
> The Douglas County Housing Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, held an emergency board of directors meeting late Wednesday afternoon.
> ...



Well, if it is a government run apartment...the Marine gets to keep his guns, since the government cannot infringe on his civil rights...


----------



## aedrasteia (Aug 8, 2013)

ballen0351 wrote:
_"__Times are different "_

Note the passive voice (present tense). Yes. Times are different because people made them different.
Those actions are still in contention, right here on MT. Those people changed the conditions of those times, 
persistently and at enormous cost. "Times" did not magically change.  (My grammar teacher _hated_ passive sentence construction)

"_and people wouldn't stand for that behavior today_" 
I hope not, but  in reality I know many who would be cheered to see those days return.
They complain (to me) that they can't speak their minds because of that "public outcry".

_"this isnt the __40's 50's__ or 60's. If a company in today's times refused service due to race they would be shut down not from Govt intervention but due to public outcry."

_That  _"public outcry"_  at the time had a purpose;  it demanded intervention on behalf of American citizens.
And was determindly opposed.

_"In the 40s and 50s segregation was not only legal but encouraged by the Govt. "
_
Encouraged by govt because that is exactly what voters/citizens wanted their government to do.
For decades, the vast majority of white Americans were entirely comfortable with that legal and cultural segregation. 
These citizens demanded that government reflect their preferences for segregation and discrimination : in one part 
of the country de facto and in another  de jure.   When other citizens petitioned and presented reasons for institutions to do 
something different, citizens preferring that status quo were outraged and determined that no such changes be tolerated.  
This status quo did not just suddenly change.  People made it change.

People, individual women and men and groups of persons allied for that express purpose, demanded and 
required that change, relentlessly and to almost overwhelming intransigent hostility and entrenched opposition.
They were blocked at every step but refused to permanently give up.  That clash is the primary element of domestic 
conflict in the 20th century.

"_Id just rather know where to go and where not to."
_
This existed:  I've seen it and held it. One belonged to a friend's father. The family used it as late as 1970. 
http://jalopnik.com/5735788/the-guide-that-helped-black-motorists-drive-around-jim-crow

Looking back, Green's book offers a reminder of how race warped the freedom that driving made possible. Black motorists in those eras frequently kept extra fuel, food and portable toilets on hand to avoid stopping in unfriendly locations. *Even outside the South, roadside motels and diners often wouldn't serve black customers. As for the Deep South itself, the Green Book spoke warnings by omission; the '49 edition lists no restaurants available in all of Alabama.

*And read it all here:  (very large PDF) http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Race/R_Casestudy/87_135_1736_GreenBk.pdf
Many states had no requirement for segregation in facilities or services, yet it was common, because 
people wanted it so.  And clearly, some people today want it to be so again.

I do not think we would benefit in any way from a return to that circumstance and i hope you
agree.  But perhaps you agree with Bill.

with respect,


----------



## arnisador (Aug 8, 2013)

billc said:


> I don't believe anyone is saying that changes needed to be made, some just think that the law enforcing segregation needed to be ended, but private property rights and freedom of thought, even bad ones should be protected.   The market would correct any problem where a business refused to do business with a particular group, especially as time went on.



That's not clear. In the 1950s, if you lived in an area that was 75% white/25% black then you wouldn't necessarily get the same mix of white-friendly/black-friendly businesses. If there is only one car dealership (say) per brand in the area then each would have to be white-friendly because that's 75% of their business. It'd work for products sold by many stores, perhaps, but not for ones sold by few. My small town has one movie theater behind the mall (with about 20 screens). It's not clear that they'd set it as 15 screens for whites and 5 for blacks--if whites objected even to that then they'd have to set it at all screens white-only. It would give the whites considerable power in some cases.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2013)

Thomas Sowell looks at segregation...

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102705.asp



> It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.
> 
> It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others didn't care, that was sufficient politically, because what blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote.
> 
> ...





> People who decry the fact that businesses are in business "just to make money" seldom understand the implications of what they are saying. You make money by doing what other people want, not what you want.
> 
> Black people's money was just as good as white people's money, even though that was not the case when it came to votes.
> 
> Initially, segregation meant that whites could not sit in the black section of a bus any more than blacks could sit in the white section. But whites who were forced to stand when there were still empty seats in the black section objected. That's when the rule was imposed that blacks had to give up their seats to whites.


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2013)

A lok at Coke a COla and segregation...
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/fighting-for-civil-rights-at-the-soda-fountain#TCCC



> Coca-Cola was always enjoyed in the soda fountains in black communities, and the company began marketing to African American consumers in the 1950s. But in some parts of the country, you could be denied the right to buy a Coke (or in some cases, denied to enjoy one while seated) if you were black. This was not a policy of The Coca-Cola Company but of segregation laws in the U.S., which were generally enforced in the South.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 8, 2013)

aedrasteia said:


> ballen0351 wrote:
> _"__Times are different "_
> 
> Note the passive voice (present tense). Yes. Times are different because people made them different.
> ...



Yes people made them different not passing laws.  The people had to change first then the laws.  I took people fighting for a change to get the laws to change.  See the pattern here PEOPLE


> "





> _and people wouldn't stand for that behavior today_"
> I hope not, but  in reality I know many who would be cheered to see those days return.
> They complain (to me) that they can't speak their minds because of that "public outcry".



really who are these "people" you know?  Look no farther then the outcry at Paula Dean to see what most people will and wont stand for.  Look no farther then Riely Cooper the Eagles Wide Receiver.  


> _"this isnt the _





> _40's 50's__ or 60's. If a company in today's times refused service due to race they would be shut down not from Govt intervention but due to public outcry."
> 
> _That  _"public outcry"_  at the time had a purpose;  it demanded intervention on behalf of American citizens.
> And was determindly opposed.
> ...


Thats my point the People changed.


> People, individual women and men and groups of persons allied for that express purpose, demanded and
> required that change, relentlessly and to almost overwhelming intransigent hostility and entrenched opposition.
> They were blocked at every step but refused to permanently give up.  That clash is the primary element of domestic
> conflict in the 20th century.



yes thats my point  even without laws as we evolve as a nation we would have changed.  We may have even changed farther had the Govt left people alone.  Alot of resentment now comes from the forced laws and artificial requirements to hire this many of this race or that many of that sex ect ect.  Had we been left to figure it out who knows where we could be now.  


> "





> _Id just rather know where to go and where not to."
> _
> This existed:  I've seen it and held it. One belonged to a friend's father. The family used it as late as 1970.
> http://jalopnik.com/5735788/the-guide-that-helped-black-motorists-drive-around-jim-crow
> ...



like I said Id much rather know how people feel so I can make better use of my money.  Id rather not support someone that hates me when there are other places that dont.  If you ok supporting people that wish you were dead in the privacy of kitchen and smile as they take you money in public then thats fine.  When I worked undercover I was treated very poorly by Nordstroms when I was buying a new suit for court.  So I dont shop there any more.  


> I do not think we would benefit in any way from a return to that circumstance and i hope you
> agree.  But perhaps you agree with Bill.
> 
> with respect,


I dont see where bill or I asked to return to segregation we both said private property should be private and people should vote with their wallets


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 8, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I dont see where bill or I asked to return to segregation we both said private property should be private and people should vote with their wallets



Do you object to the anti-discrimination laws remaining on the books?


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2013)

And some libertarians have no sympathy for republicans when they are unjustly attacked by the race card...wait till they become a real threat in politics...they will become racists overnight...


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2013)

I believe in laws that prohibit government from discriminating against people.   laws that tell businesses who they can or can't do business with should be removed, since a business is someone's private property, and the government shouldn't be able to force people to discriminate or not discriminate, depending on who is in control of that government.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 8, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> Do you object to the anti-discrimination laws remaining on the books?



Depends on the law.  I think my position is pretty clear.  Private property should be allowed to serve or not serve whoever they want.  Public entities should be available to all


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2013)

Economic power will work out problems of discrimination...economic power blocked by state power...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/what-do-the-montgomery-bus-boycotts-and-trash-collection-in-san-francisco-have-in-common/



> *What Do the Montgomery Bus Boycotts and Trash Collection in San Francisco Have in Common?*





> Blogger Mike &#8220;Mish&#8221; Shedlock posted a fascinating story on his website regarding a situation in San Francisco.  In &#8220;Trash Collecting Entrepreneur Squashed In San Francisco&#8221; he cites one of his respondents, known simply as Michael, who relates a story about trash collection.  One of the customers of the local trash collection service&#8212;a contractor referred to as Joe&#8212;got fed up with paying $37 per trash can, per week, for garbage removal.  He and his neighbor began to take their own trash for disposal at a local dump, using &#8220;Joe&#8217;s&#8221; truck.  Shortly, other neighbors joined their informal garbage disposal network, opting to pay the contractor $10 a week _for more service_ than they were getting from the city union.  Soon, after their little business had begun to unexpectedly take off, their competitors decided to call in the big guns.When the local garbage company and its union found out about &#8220;Joe&#8221; they complained to the city. Within a year a law was passed stating that garbage service was now mandatory for all residents at the price the city&#8217;s monopoly charged, which was shortly raised.  And &#8220;Joe&#8221;?  For a while he still took our recyclables until he was fined $4000, even though he had our permission.​None of this is really that surprising.  The State often passes laws to prevent competition.  For example, Lysander Spooner&#8217;s attempts to compete with the post office led to the passing of laws specifically designed to prevent competition in delivery of first class mail.



And it was economic power that helped desegregate the south...



> Consider:  When the Montgomery Bus Boycotts began, black people immediately tried to find alternative means of transportation.  This was a classic market response.  Some of the local taxis, specifically the ones driven by other black people, began to offer reduced-price rides. They charged a fare equal to the cost of a bus ride.  How did the City of Montgomery respond?  The city began to fine taxis for charging reduced fares.  They made it against the law to charge whatever you wanted for the service you sold to customers who voluntarily sought you out.  (Sound familiar?)  Not to be outdone (and using techniques from similar boycotts in other places), the black citizens organized _extensive_ carpool options.  These were people attempting to use their own resources&#8212;pieces of private property known as automobiles&#8212;to provide a voluntary service for people who needed rides.  How did the City of Montgomery respond?  The city forced insurance carriers to drop coverage for any such car.  Note that this was a struggle between citizens of Montgomery who happened to be black and the City of Montgomery&#8212;an arm of the government.
> Any competent student of U.S. history knows how all this played out.  The boycott lasted for a very long time, much longer than comparable ones in other cities.  The federal government eventually rode to the rescue, passing legislation that required the bus company to treat all passengers equally.  What is generally not known is this.  The bus company, losing money hand over fist early in the boycott, was actually considering a way to acquiesce to the citizens&#8217; demands early in the boycott, since a large percentage of the bus company&#8217;s ridership was black people.  (They say the way to a man&#8217;s heart is through his stomach.  I say the way to a racist&#8217;s heart is through his wallet.)  Furthermore, the business community of Montgomery, also feeling the burn of less black spending, formed a group called the Men of Montgomery with the express purpose of finding a way to end the boycott.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (Aug 8, 2013)

An earlier economic boycott that changed policy...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1304163



> In 1953, 80 percent of bus riders were black &#8212; and Reed knew that a boycott would send an economic message.
> "Historians believe it was one of the first times blacks in the South organized to challenge segregation," Elliott says. "Yet most people here &#8212; even the African-American bus drivers &#8212; don't know about the Baton Rouge bus boycott."





> After eight days of boycotting the buses, the Baton Rouge City Council agreed to a compromise that opened all seats &#8212; except for the front two, which would be for whites, and the back two, for black riders.
> That wasn't good enough for some protesters, but Jemison called off the boycott anyway, arguing they had achieved what they set out to do.
> "When we started we didn't start to end segregation on buses," he tells Elliott, "we just started to get seats."


----------

