• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Agree with John Stossel?

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?


  • Total voters
    96
Why are libertarians so sympathetic to the racist swine who practiced segregation and discrimination for decades before the Civil Rights Act?
It's not that at all. I agree people have the right to be idiots. Racists are idiots. It is not your place or mine to force change upon them.
 
Correct ... Everyone has the right to be a douche ... but they do not have the the right to PRACTICE their douche-baggery when it interferes with the Civil Rights of others Americans
There are plenty of places today that will accept people of all color. Why do you want people to use the force of law to go in where they aren't wanted? Today, racist places will not be common, or prosper.
 
It's not that at all. I agree people have the right to be idiots. Racists are idiots. It is not your place or mine to force change upon them.

I don't buy it at all. If you wish to allow people to practice racial discrimination, you sympathize with these scum to at least some degree.
A right to believe and a right to practice are two entirely different things.
Analogy: We can not control the private fantasies of a pedophile ... he has the right to harbor his lust for children within his own head. The moment he treads on the rights of a child to be left unmolested he has broken the law and social and moral decency.
The same could be said of the racist who owns a business. He has the right to believe anything he wants to about race relations but he does not have the right to racially discriminate against his black patrons who have the right not to be discriminated against.
If you believe he does then you are a de facto racist yourself.
It is absolutely the place for you and I, and all of society to keep the racist from practicing racism just as it is OUR responsibility to stop the pedophile from practicing pedophilia.
In my honest opinion libertarian-ism is a thinly veiled disguise for racists to wear when confronted with the potential to repeal anti racist law, and i have no stomach for it.
 
The same could be said of the racist who owns a business. He has the right to believe anything he wants to about race relations but he does not have the right to racially discriminate against his black patrons who have the right not to be discriminated against.

If you believe he does then you are a de facto racist yourself.

De facto? Nope. In fact, I am not. I'm only that in your ignorant namecalling.


Counterexample - I defend your right to say stupid and bigoted things, it certainly doesn't mean I agree with them.
 
There are plenty of places today that will accept people of all color. Why do you want people to use the force of law to go in where they aren't wanted? Today, racist places will not be common, or prosper.
Bullsquat! Racist businesses did and would still prosper. The "good ole' boy" network as was seen in the Jim Crow days of the south always made sure that the racists were protected and made up for the lack of black patronage.
In my honest opinion libertarianism is a thinly veiled disguise for racists to wear when presented with the prospect of repealing the laws that prevent the practice of racial discrimination. Like it or not when you condone the return to the legal practice of public racism, it make you look like a racist.
There is no "liberty" in the free practice of racial discrimination.
 
De facto? Nope. In fact, I am not. I'm only that in your ignorant namecalling.


.

You are either a part of the problem or you are part of the solution to racism. Call it what you will, you are taking the position of an enabler.
 
How about if I was hiring for the job that you do and I advertised a very high pay for that job .
When you came down to interview for the position a sign on the door said " LIBERTARIANS NEED NOT APPLY"...
You'd be okay with that and just go on your way ??
 
The true libertarian position would be to be against the laws that pervaded throughout the south that negated the civil rights of people of color.
All the Civil Rights Act did was to strike down all those stupid local laws that enforced segregation and discrimination based on race religion or gender.
A true libertarian would welcome an umbrella law that prevented all these truly stupid liberty fettering laws that kept people from being free. There were suddenly many fewer laws when the CRA was enacted.
No, anyone who claims to be against the Civil Rights Act because of a "libertarian" ideology doesn't convince me at all. It makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
You are either a part of the problem or you are part of the solution to racism. Call it what you will, you are taking the position of an enabler.

Yeah, I guess I am an enabler of free speech as well.
And freedom of religion.
And virtually every other freedom we have. I'm such an enabler.

The true libertarian position would be to be against the laws that pervaded throughout the south that negated the civil rights of people of color.

What a coincidence, we are all against Jim Crow laws, just like everyone else.

Why am I against Jim Crow laws? Because they dictate who a business owner can't provide custom to

Why am I against one aspect of CRA 1964? Because it dictates who a business owner must give custom to.

Both are equally bad.
 
They win the election, have the overwhelming support, make a better argument.

Again, you're exaggerating. That's not what's said. What's said is, don't discriminate or you'll be fined. Say within the reality of it.

The fact that a large number of people want to do something has no bearing on whether that act is ethical. The libertarian position is that it is wrong to initiate aggression. It doesn't matter whether a lot of people wish to do so or a single individual wishes to do so. In either case the initiation of aggression is wrong. A group of people has not special authority that does not belong to any individual.
 
I completely disagree. Economic discrimination on race and gender should remain illegal.
 
Buck Ewer said:
I don't buy it at all. If you wish to allow people to practice racial discrimination, you sympathize with these scum to at least some degree.
How I feel about someone does not give me the right to take away their freedom of association with the force of law behind me.
Buck Ewer said:
A right to believe and a right to practice are two entirely different things.

Analogy: We can not control the private fantasies of a pedophile ... he has the right to harbor his lust for children within his own head. The moment he treads on the rights of a child to be left unmolested he has broken the law and social and moral decency.
At this point, he does harm to another.
Buck Ewer said:
The same could be said of the racist who owns a business. He has the right to believe anything he wants to about race relations but he does not have the right to racially discriminate against his black patrons who have the right not to be discriminated against.
If you believe he does then you are a de facto racist yourself.
First off, we all discriminate all the time. Racial discrimination is a discrimination that is not well accepted by most people these days. If such laws were removed from the books, I'm sure you would find very, very few businesses that would effectively have " no black patrons" or "blacks need not apply." In today's world, any business thought to be racist wouldn't be in business long. Maybe a small few would, but really... With so many other places, why does it matter, besides not accepting other people's views?
Buck Ewer said:
It is absolutely the place for you and I, and all of society to keep the racist from practicing racism just as it is OUR responsibility to stop the pedophile from practicing pedophilia.
Lead by example then, rather than force of race baiting.
Buck Ewer said:
In my honest opinion libertarian-ism is a thinly veiled disguise for racists to wear when confronted with the potential to repeal anti racist law, and i have no stomach for it.
Well, you can still find racists everywhere. I find most are liberal authoritarians who love to keep blacks underprivileged, so they have a political cause for power.
 
Bullsquat! Racist businesses did and would still prosper. The "good ole' boy" network as was seen in the Jim Crow days of the south always made sure that the racists were protected and made up for the lack of black patronage.
In my honest opinion libertarianism is a thinly veiled disguise for racists to wear when presented with the prospect of repealing the laws that prevent the practice of racial discrimination. Like it or not when you condone the return to the legal practice of public racism, it make you look like a racist.
There is no "liberty" in the free practice of racial discrimination.
It's people like you who most right leaning people people hate. We have little tolerance for those who punish the many over the sins of a few.
 
You are either a part of the problem or you are part of the solution to racism. Call it what you will, you are taking the position of an enabler.
Yes, and you are part of the problem, by requiring the force of law to support your views.
 
How about if I was hiring for the job that you do and I advertised a very high pay for that job .
When you came down to interview for the position a sign on the door said " LIBERTARIANS NEED NOT APPLY"...
You'd be okay with that and just go on your way ??

I wouldn't like it in some aspect, but I know upfront that the employer is an idiot, and it saves me from quitting in the future.
 
No, anyone who claims to be against the Civil Rights Act because of a "libertarian" ideology doesn't convince me at all. It makes no sense.
I thought this discussion was about just part of the act. Not the whole of it...
 
Yeah, I guess I am an enabler of free speech as well.
And freedom of religion.
And virtually every other freedom we have. I'm such an enabler.



What a coincidence, we are all against Jim Crow laws, just like everyone else.

Why am I against Jim Crow laws? Because they dictate who a business owner can't provide custom to

Why am I against one aspect of CRA 1964? Because it dictates who a business owner must give custom to.

Both are equally bad.

Absolutely.
 
Yes, and you are part of the problem, by requiring the force of law to support your views.

Agree. Initiating aggression is not acceptable, not even to stop people from refusing to interact with the people with whom you want them to.
 
The fact that a large number of people want to do something has no bearing on whether that act is ethical. The libertarian position is that it is wrong to initiate aggression. It doesn't matter whether a lot of people wish to do so or a single individual wishes to do so. In either case the initiation of aggression is wrong. A group of people has not special authority that does not belong to any individual.

Not aggression. Exaggerating doesn't help your cause. And yes, having a majority is better most forms. No where in the world do people love without rules. There are reasons for this.
 
I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users I thought I would try it again.

In May 2010 Rand Paul announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate from Kentucky on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. On the show he got into some trouble because he said he wouldn't support the "public accommodations" portion of the Civil Right Act of 1964.

That led up to this confrontation with Megyn Kelly on Fox where he said he favors repeal of that part of the law.

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

Yes
No
I don't Know



Here is part of the transcript:

KELLY: Rand Paul is a libertarian. You are a libertarian. He is getting excoriated for suggesting that the Civil Rights act -- what he said was, "Look it's got 10 parts, essentially; I favor nine. It's the last part that mandated no discrimination in places of public accommodation that I have a problem with, because you should let businesses decide for themselves whether they are going to be racist or not racist. Because once the government gets involved, it's a slippery slope." Do you agree with that?

STOSSEL: Totally. I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, "We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys," it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.

KELLY: OK. When you put it like that it sounds fine, right? So who cares if a blond anchorwoman and mustached anchorman can't go into the lunchroom. But as you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around because it was needed. Blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter with whites. They couldn't, as they traveled from state to state in this country, they couldn't go in and use a restroom. They couldn't get severed meals and so on, and therefore, unfortunately in this country a law was necessary to get them equal rights.

STOSSEL: Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.

KELLY: How do you know? How do you know that these private business owners, who owned restaurants and so on, would have said, "You know what? Yes. We will take blacks.

STOSSEL: Some wouldn't.

KELLY: We'll take gays. We'll take lesbians," if they hadn't been forced to do it.

STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.

KELLY: How do you know that, John?

STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.

KELLY: That then was a different time. Racism and discrimination was rampant. I'm not saying it's been eliminated. But it was rampant. It was before my time, before I was born, but obviously I've read history, and I know that there is something wrong when a person of color can't get from state to state without stopping at a public restroom or a public lunchroom to have a sandwich.

STOSSEL: But the public restroom was run by the government, and maybe at the time that was necessary.

KELLY: But that's not what Rand Paul said. Rand Paul agreed that if it's run by the government, yes intervention is fine. He took issue with the public accommodations, with private businesses being forced to pony up under the discrimination laws.

STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law

KELLY: What?

STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't 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.​





Not only should it not be repealed, it won't be repealed.

The Libertarians will never have enough votes to get this through Congress.

Not going to happen.

Wait and see.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Last edited:
The fact that a large number of people want to do something has no bearing on whether that act is ethical. The libertarian position is that it is wrong to initiate aggression. It doesn't matter whether a lot of people wish to do so or a single individual wishes to do so. In either case the initiation of aggression is wrong. A group of people has not special authority that does not belong to any individual.




They do in the USA.

With enough votes you can pass any law.

Whether the Libertarians like it or not.

That will not change any time soon.

Its how the USA works.
 
Does the truth hurt?

Nope. If you told it we have a discussion. But as you choose to leave discourse and instead battle stereotypes, there's reall no place else to go. You've already conceded.
 
Nope. If you told it we have a discussion. But as you choose to leave discourse and instead battle stereotypes, there's reall no place else to go. You've already conceded.
No. I'm tired of people supporting special rights. That's what it boils down to.

I actually believe that the people supporting all these "special right" are the racists. By definition, a racist is someone who believes one race is inferior to another. Therefore, I conclude that everyone who believe that minorities need such a helping hand, believes they are inferior.

This isn't the age of the past, where blacks have little to no opportunity. There are only a very limited few who would deny minorities an equal chance. I say it's time to stop racism, primarily by ignoring the few turds we still have in society. make them meaningless. Legislating racial law, is supporting racism, by definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom