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

[aedrasteia]

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]

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]

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.

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

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

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

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]

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]

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)

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.

"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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 “Mish” Shedlock posted a fascinating story on his website regarding a situation in San Francisco. In “Trash Collecting Entrepreneur Squashed In San Francisco” 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—a contractor referred to as Joe—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 “Joe’s” 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 “Joe” 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’s monopoly charged, which was shortly raised. And “Joe”? 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’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—pieces of private property known as automobiles—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—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’ demands early in the boycott, since a large percentage of the bus company’s ridership was black people. (They say the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. I say the way to a racist’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.

One could argue that it wasonly because the city blocked alternative travel options and outside financiers “spotted” the bus company money that the whole thing wasn’t over in a few weeks.

 

[billc]

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 — 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 — even the African-American bus drivers — 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 — 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."