So what you're saying is that segregation helps racists stay racist, and encourages racism.  I can certainly believe that.  And desegregation helps discourage racism. 

But I'm not sure why people would be more racist now than if desegregation hadn't been forced outside of government or gov't-supported institutions.  Just because people will resist forced change generally, and this resistance ossified?  Or the "affirmative action effect"?  Or what? 
If it's too complicated to explain to a layman in a reasonably-sized post, just say so.  I'm a big boy, I can take it. 

So what you're saying is that segregation helps racists stay racist, and encourages racism.  I can certainly believe that.  And desegregation helps discourage racism. 

But I'm not sure why people would be more racist now than if desegregation hadn't been forced outside of government or gov't-supported institutions.  Just because people will resist forced change generally, and this resistance ossified?  Or the "affirmative action effect"?  Or what? 
If it's too complicated to explain to a layman in a reasonably-sized post, just say so.  I'm a big boy, I can take it. 

Possibly the best line from that story was George Orwell's quote (paraphrase?), which I may or may not have heard before:  nobody knows what jackboots are, except that they're the footwear you put on when you're going out to deprive someone of their civil rights.

But that was some really interesting stuff.  Too bad so many things try to play it so much safer today, proabably due to corporate caution. 

Final-Fan said: So what you're saying is that segregation helps racists stay racist, and encourages racism.  I can certainly believe that.  And desegregation helps discourage racism.  But I'm not sure why people would be more racist now than if desegregation hadn't been forced outside of government or gov't-supported institutions.  Just because people will resist forced change generally, and this resistance ossified?  Or the "affirmative action effect"?  Or what?  If it's too complicated to explain to a layman in a reasonably-sized post, just say so.  I'm a big boy, I can take it.

Generally it's a little bit of both... change just like affirmitive action, change mandated from the government can often be seen as being caused by the government.  It could even be rationalized by looking at most people activly not trying to be racist as being brainwashed by the government, and all that nonsense.  It lets groups stay more insular, vs a change by the people, which can't be denied as clearly just a movement by the people.

Forced desegregation in private buisnesses basically aloud people to say "they would of never alowed this if they weren't forced too, and if they think differently now it's because they were brainwashed."  In general that appears to be the platform of a lot of racist people.  Most people would be with them if it wasn't for the government.

Theoretically if they would of only would of stopped desegregation in state instutitions, racism would of lowered, and buisnesses would of desegregated themselves and racists would have been generally "defeated".

It would of just started to swing heavily as soon as the profit of including black people surpassed the negative economic loss of boycotting from white people.  It's like when black atheletes started breaking into white only sports.

The question is though... when would this of happened.  Which is a very real question.  It likely would of happened later, but when it did had a much more condensed timeframe to getting equal rights. 

I think it would of happened by now, but in honesty I can't be certain.  In some areas though, racism does seem MUCH more codified in culture.  When, during say the time of the Civil War... despite the fact that the North and South disagreed on whether slavery should be allowed... their generally beliefs on the state of the black man were about the same.
They just felt differently on how to handle this race of men that were "inferoir but still men."

Even an "eased" seregation would of worked better... but it's hard to argue for "eased" or moderation when you can make things drastically better for people in the short term.

It's like Africa... there are a lot of convincing arguements that the Aid we provide these nations is actually doing more harm then good, proping up dictators, making people reliant on aid and making their populations grow far greater then they should.
Still, it'd be awfully hard to cut funding because of how much worse life would be for those currently living.

Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: So what you're saying is that segregation helps racists stay racist, and encourages racism.  I can certainly believe that.  And desegregation helps discourage racism.  But I'm not sure why people would be more racist now than if desegregation hadn't been forced outside of government or gov't-supported institutions.  Just because people will resist forced change generally, and this resistance ossified?  Or the "affirmative action effect"?  Or what?  If it's too complicated to explain to a layman in a reasonably-sized post, just say so.  I'm a big boy, I can take it.  Generally it's a little bit of both... change just like affirmitive action, change mandated from the government can often be seen as being caused by the government.  It could even be rationalized by looking at most people activly not trying to be racist as being brainwashed by the government, and all that nonsense.  It lets groups stay more insular, vs a change by the people, which can't be denied as clearly just a movement by the people. Forced desegregation in private buisnesses basically aloud people to say "they would of never alowed this if they weren't forced too, and if they think differently now it's because they were brainwashed."  In general that appears to be the platform of a lot of racist people.  Most people would be with them if it wasn't for the government. Theoretically if they would of only would of stopped desegregation in state instutitions, racism would of lowered, and buisnesses would of desegregated themselves and racists would have been generally "defeated". It would of just started to swing heavily as soon as the profit of including black people surpassed the negative economic loss of boycotting from white people.  It's like when black atheletes started breaking into white only sports. The question is though... when would this of happened.  Which is a very real question.  It likely would of happened later, but when it did had a much more condensed timeframe to getting equal rights.  I think it would of happened by now, but in honesty I can't be certain.  In some areas though, racism does seem MUCH more codified in culture.  When, during say the time of the Civil War... despite the fact that the North and South disagreed on whether slavery should be allowed... their generally beliefs on the state of the black man were about the same. They just felt differently on how to handle this race of men that were "inferoir but still men." Even an "eased" seregation would of worked better... but it's hard to argue for "eased" or moderation when you can make things drastically better for people in the short term. It's like Africa... there are a lot of convincing arguements that the Aid we provide these nations is actually doing more harm then good, proping up dictators, making people reliant on aid and making their populations grow far greater then they should. Still, it'd be awfully hard to cut funding because of how much worse life would be for those currently living.

In retrospect, this most definitely would have happened IMO due to the big business effect.  (It's the good side of huge corporations being heartless -- they're not racist if it'll make them a penny to be tolerant, just as they'd make soup out of your grandmother for the same reason.)

But I don't think that trend was obvious enough for them to see it at the time. 

As for South Park, I suppose that's because they're risk takers a lot of areas.  (I'd say "including taste" but that covers too much ground -- South Park can be tasteless in like a dozen different ways.)  Fortunately only Family Guy seems to be pushing the edge in "stretch a joke out until absolutely everyone wants it to end.  Then add 30 seconds." 

Before diving into the substance of Dr. Rand Paul’s remarks on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, let’s get one thing straight: Paul was a fool for blundering into that tar pit — or allowing MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow to lure him into it like a drunken farmer chasing a corpse candle into a bog. Worse, once hip deep in the big muddy, he contracted a bad case of hoof-in-mouth disease and couldn’t defend his position.

But just because one shallow thinker of today was unable to defend the liberty position doesn’t make indefensible a principle famously argued by Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election campaign… no matter what Hugh Hewitt says.

It’s hard to nail down exactly what Paul’s position actually is; I think it’s the same as Goldwater’s: Where state or federal policy either directly discriminates on the basis of race or else mandates private racial discrimination, it is absolutely appropriate to pass a federal law overturning such “institutional racialism;” however, such a law should not and constitutionally cannot reach beyond that point to purely private and voluntary racial discrimination, which (alas) the final version of the Act did.

That’s why Goldwater voted against it after having supported earlier versions that did not outlaw private, volunatry discrimination; and fair warning, that is my objection to the Act, as well.

Here’s my best collage of Paul’s lengthy, meandering, and unfocused response to Maddow:

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?

PAUL: Yes. I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?

I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it…..

MADDOW: I mean, the Civil Rights Act was the federal government stepping in to protect civil rights because they weren’t otherwise being protected. It wasn’t a hypothetical. There were businesses that were saying black people cannot be served here and the federal government stepped in and said, no, you actually don’t have that choice to make. The federal government is coming in and saying you can’t make that choice as a business owner.

Which side of that debate would you put yourself on?

PAUL: In the totality of it, I’m in favor of the federal government being involved in civil rights and that’s, you know, mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about…. Most of the things [Martin Luther King, jr.] was fighting were laws. He was fighting Jim Crow laws. He was fighting legalized and institutional racism. And I’d be right there with him….

MADDOW: As I understand it, what you`re saying, [is that] the portion of the Civil Rights Act that said you can’t actually have segregated lunch counters here at your private business [is the one title of the Civil Rights Act you reject]…. Until the year 2000, Bob Jones University, a private institution, had a ban on interracial dating at their school, their private institution. If Bob Jones University wanted to bring that back now, would you support their right to do so?

PAUL: Well, I think it’s interesting because the debate involves more than just that, because the debate also involves a lot of court cases with regard to the commerce clause. For example, right now, many states and many gun organizations are saying they have a right to carry a gun in a public restaurant because a public restaurant is not a private restaurant. Therefore, they have a right to carry their gun in there and that the restaurant has no right to have rules to their restaurant.

So, you see how this could be turned on many liberal observers who want to excoriate me on this. Then to be consistent, they’d have to say, oh, well, yes, absolutely, you’ve got your right to carry your gun anywhere because it’s a public place.

So, you see, when you blur the distinction between public and private, there are problems. When you blur the distinction between public and private ownership, there really is a problem. A lot of this was settled a long time ago and isn’t being debated anymore….

MADDOW: Let’s say there’s a town right now and the owner of the town’s swimming club says we’re not going to allow black kids at our pool, and the owner of the bowling alley in town says, we’re not actually going to allow black patrons, and the owner of the skating rink in town says, we’re not going to allow black people to skate here.

And you may think that’s abhorrent and you may think that’s bad business. But unless it’s illegal, there’s nothing to stop that — there’s nothing under your world view to stop the country from re-segregating like we were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 –

PAUL: Right.

It goes on an on, but the basic points are all here. Note that Paul brings up a valid analogy — should gun owners in a gun-friendly state be allowed to bring guns into a restaurant, even against the will of the restaurant’s owner?

Paul says no. But if the owner is allowed the private-property liberty to control who brings a weapon into his facility, then under what principle can he not control who he allows in, period? The analogy was valid, but it was (again) foolishly chosen: No listener not already predisposed to the Goldwater, Paul, and Lizardian point of view will understand his point.

Allow me to help Dr. Paul out of the mire; again, bear in mind I’m defending his position, not the hamfisted way he expressed it.

Rachel Maddow’s fundamental confusion is shared by all liberals and about 80% of conservatives (e.g., Hugh Hewitt): Under Jim Crow, the problem wasn’t that individual owners “decided” to racially discriminate; state laws required them to discriminate.

In a free market, some-but-not-all restaurants will discriminate, while others won’t. Those that do cut off much of their customer base — not just the potential customers who are black but also those whites who vehemently oppose racial discrimination; their non-discriminating competitors get the extra business instead. Thus, a discriminatory stance creates an automatic “economic penalty”: Racism becomes an expensive luxury that most business owners simply cannot afford.

(The same punishment operates whenever an owner makes an economic decision on a completely non-economic basis, such as not serving old people or divesting stock from companies that do business with Israel; that’s one of the magical effects of a free market!)

After a while, many racists will decide they need the money more than they need to discriminate; they will take down the “whites only” sign, no matter how much it pains them, or risk going out of business. A few will maintain their discrimination until the bitter end; so it goes.

But wait, what about the other side of the coin? Some dyed in the wool racists would only frequent those establishments that discriminate. They will boycott the integrated businesses and patronize only the racists.

Frankly, I doubt that such persons would have been the majority in any state even back in the days of Jim Crow: If they had been the majority, there would have been no need for laws to force them to do what they wanted to do in the first place. The very fact that the state legislature had to enact Jim Crow laws testifies that residents weren’t discriminating, they weren’t keeping blacks “in their places.”

Walter Williams writes about this in his wonderful book, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism: The Afrikaaners enacted Apartheid laws precisely because at the turn of the twentieth century, businesses (from railroads to mines to hotels), left to their own free will, were rapidly integrating the races. Economic necessity was breaking down the barriers; blacks offered their services for lower wages than whites, and employers snapped them up to save labor costs. Soon the whites had to lower their own wages to compete; at the same time, as blacks gained more experience, they raised their demands… eventually, the two races met in the middle, more or less.

Funnily enough, one of the first bills the Kreugerites enacted forced businesses to pay blacks and whites exactly the same wages, “equal pay for equal work.” Sound familiar? The effect was to remove the financial incentive to hire blacks, because their labor was no longer any bargain.

With the market mechanisms removed, it was easy to threaten or bully businesses into hiring and promoting only whites. (Most of the racist coercion was committed by the socialist labor unions, by the way… quelle surprise!) Thus, even in Apartheid South Africa, the free market acted to integrate and equalize the races, while the government — “for their own good” — acted to segregate and discriminate between them — “Apartheid” literally means “apart-ness”.

In any event, I steadfastly believe that even in the deep South in the 1950s, far more potential customers would choose to patronize a business on the basis of quality and price — than on the basis of whether that business segregated black from white. Over the long run (which would likely be only a few years), that would drive out the adamant racists: Businesses operate on such a small margin that even a small economic advantage towards race neutrality would have an oversized effect on a business’ viability.

Unless, that is, the state steps in and makes such racial discrimination mandatory; that is what we mean by “Jim Crow.” If the state interferes with the market, forcing everyone to discriminate, it kills the market’s ability to drive behavior away from irrelevant (and offensive) absurdities like racial discrimination: I can no longer compete with a “whites only” lunchcounter by advertising “we serve everybody!” I would be arrested and my business shut down if I tried.

That robs me of my liberty, my property rights; and that is the ground on which the Civil Rights Act should have been fought. Let freedom reign, and allow the market to do its holy job of driving the fools and haters out of business.

Of course, there will always be pockets where there really are more racists than sons and daughters of liberty; in those dark nooks, they will open their whites-only swimming pools and bowling alleys and ice-skating rinks. What do we do about that?

We let them. If they want to segregate themselves away from the rest of society, let them huddle together and fester. So long as we all have freedom of mobility and association, the 99% of the country that is decent will isolate the tiny fraction who are morally putrid; and the good citizens will open their own pools, alleys, and rinks open to everyone. After all, there’s gold in them thar businesses.

The racist kooks will become curiosities, monkeys in a zoo: We’ll point and laugh at the funny and now-powerless haters, just as we do whenever the Ku Klux Klan musters its eight or nine hoodwinkers to stand on the corner holding up racist, and typically illiterate signs.

That’s the American way, the path of liberty. Just as we don’t deny Klansmen, Black Panthers, or MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán) their freedom of speech, we should also not deny them their right to serve only “their own kind,” if that’s what they want.

Nor do we prevent the rest of us from expressing displeasure by patronizing their competitors instead.

Had Rand Paul really thought this all through aforehand, he could have answered Rachel Maddow much more powerfully and directly, like this (warning, fabricated interview ahead!):

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?

LIZARDS: Sure — if they want to cut their own economic throats.

MADDOW: What do you mean? The Civil Rights Act was the federal government stepping in to protect civil rights because they weren’t otherwise being protected. It wasn’t a hypothetical. There were businesses that were saying black people cannot be served here and the federal government stepped in and said, no, you actually don’t have that choice to make. The federal government is coming in and saying you can’t make that choice as a business owner.

How about desegregating lunch counters? Lunch counters. Walgreen’s lunch counters, were you in favor of that? Possibly? Because the government got involved?

LIZARDS: The problem wasn’t that Jim Crow wasn’t protecting civil rights, Rachel. The great evil of Jim Crow laws was that they forced even non-racists to racially discriminate.

In a free market, I could open a lunchcounter right across the street from a “whites only” Walgreens; and in my front window, I could put a sign that says “we serve everybody!” I have faith in the American people, Southerners included. Let me compete with the racists without the state government or federal government stacking the deck, and I guarantee you I’ll drive the racial haters out of business and out of town.

That way, we’ll lose the racists — good riddance — but we’ll keep liberty and the sanctity of private property, the cornerstone of America. That’s the same sanctity of private property, by the way, that allows a homeowner to sell his house to a black family, no matter what the ancient, entrenched political class in the state capital demand.

MADDOW: Mr. Reptile, until the year 2000, Bob Jones University, a private institution, had a ban on interracial dating at their school, their private institution. If Bob Jones University wanted to bring that back now, would you support their right to do so?

LIZARDS: Bob Jones University didn’t drop its policy as a result of the Civil Rights Act; President Bob Jones dropped the policy in the year 2000, because the adverse publicity of its racist stance was hurting the university. That’s an important point, Rachel: The market was hurting Bob Jones badly enough that it forced them to change their stupid, evil policy.

The most the feds ever did to BJU was to take away its religious tax exemption. I’ve long argued that when an insitution requests special dispensation that amounts to an endorsement of that institution — such as a religious tax exemption that secular private universities don’t get — the government has every right to make that privilege contingent upon meeting the base-level standards of decency that American society demands. I would just as vigorously oppose giving a tax exemption to Mohammed Atta Martyrdom University, no matter how sincerely held was its jihadist religous curriculum.

MADDOW: Let’s say there’s a town right now and the owner of the town’s swimming club says we’re not going to allow black kids at our pool, and the owner of the bowling alley in town says, we’re not actually going to allow black patrons, and the owner of the skating rink in town says, we’re not going to allow black people to skate here.

And you may think that’s abhorrent and you may think that’s bad business. But unless it’s illegal, there’s nothing to stop that — there’s nothing under your world view to stop the country from re-segregating like we were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

LIZARDS: Nothing but the justice and common decency of the American people! In the first place, this isn’t the 1950s. The whole world has come a long way in the last half century, wouldn’t you say? And no country in the world is less racist than the United States: Not a single state in the Union has even one pair of racists in its legislature to conspire together to re-segregate the country.

But frankly, Rachel, I don’t even believe any state in the deep South had a majority of racist citizens even in 1964. What they had was an oligarchy of bitter, hate-filled, septuagenarian racists who occupied state legislatures like the Nazis occupied the Reichstag. They were corrupt, elections were rigged, and they couldn’t be ousted from their seats except perhaps by dynamite… or by joining Republican Party!

But that’s no longer true, and it hasn’t been since I was in grade school. Oh yes, there is still racial discrimination in the United States; but today, as in the 50s and 60s, it comes from the left side of the aisle, from race-obsessed Democrats and leftists allied with radical Islam. But so long as we can keep the Left away from the levers of power, I’m confident America will never re-segregate.

I am quite certain this would have been much, much harder to spin as racist, pro-segregation, and anti-civil rights. And in any event, it sure would have made more exciting political theater!