| TheMisterManGuy said: In regards to what Charlie said about the Civil Rights Act, He's right. The CRA was a mistake, and that's a view shared by most libertarians. You don't need a federal law to protect individual rights of minorities, when freedom of association and the free market will already take care of that. Hell, I'd argue the Civil rights act is one of the reasons behind DEI mandates of modern times. Kirk wasn't advocating against groups of people having rights. He was advocating for government to stop enacting nonsense laws like the CRA to fix problems that natural rights of citizens and the free market could already fix. |
Why weren't the rights of minorities secured and why didn't the free-market take care of it for the hundred years between the 13th thru 15th Amendments and the CRA? That's a pretty long time for the "free-market" to drop the ball. If your argument is that the market wasn't free, then it is pretty useless to talk about "the free market" that never existed ever.
Even still, most right-wing "libertarians" support the first two civil rights acts, even if they don't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Barry Goldwater, for example, supported the CRA of 1957 and the CRA of 1960. He didn't support the 1964 law mostly because of Title VII and II. He was mostly in favor of everything else in it. He also regretted not voting for it.
Charlie's language didn't discern between them, and he specifically used it in reference to Title IX, which no libertarian should oppose if they were aware of the inequalities in the Jim Crow states.
"Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from U.S. state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts."
Last edited by sc94597 - on 11 September 2025
