I can see it. Though I am afraid of geese, mannequins, and scissors so I guess that's not saying much.

Sounds like you actually fear Kim Cattrall...which is a perfectly understandable fear.

Kim Cattrall is a goose?

Wasn't Sex in the City a chick version of Top Gun with Cattrall playing Goose?

That seems uncalled for, as robinred actually is an adult in the room. You don't see him engaging in these back-and-forths.

I resent that. I can be just as immature and stupid as anyone else here, when I set my mind to it. I spoke up because I think that there is a difference between what happened with Face and Sam, and just calling a guy an idiot or evil or whatever.

Ray is amusing over drinks. David always chickens out. I think he's a'feard of me.

hell I'm afraid of you too.

For whatever reason I've always pictured Sam as a combination of Edward Scissorhands and the Comic Book Guy in Ihe Simpsons, possibly deadly but seriously immobile. But I'll bet that he's as cuddly as Charles Barkley in person.

Me, I've got all the attributes of Larry David, except money and a sense of humor.

Me, I've got all the attributes of Larry David, except money and a sense of humor.

Unfortunately I look and sound quite a lot like Will Carroll...

I've always pictured Good Face as somewhere between Donald Pleasance as Blofeld and Miek Myers/Dr. Evil

Andy = Deadhead/ unrepentant 60s hippie

Sam = A southern version of the ranting "I am A Canadian" guy that used to do beer commercials in Ontario

DMN = I draw blanks, though if I squint I can see Paul Ryan without the pre-natal silverspoon...

Woolworth's wasn't a common carrier!

I don't think this affects my basic point about how I interpreted your previous comments. That said, it's an interesting question whether the common law rule for innkeepers would have included Woolworth's.

You are shifting from "violates autonomy" to "cost."

For a reason. I am suggesting that when an actor in society does an action it has a cost to me and to society even if it does not "violate autonomy". I am saying that your philosophy is drawing lines that are much fuzzier in the real world. I am not saying cost is the ultimate aribitor, just it is an ignored factor in what you said.

That isn't a cost to this imaginary construct you call society, any more than choosing to be an art history major rather than an engineer is. That choice may result in a lower GDP, but so what? Nobody owes this "society" thing an efficient use of one's own resources.

Incorrect analogy. If a town only supports one potter and that potter refuses to serve 10% of the population, then there is no way for the market to fix the problem definitively. A second potter shows up in town, but now there are more potters than the town can support. There is a cost to forcing the dicriminated against to go elsewhere for their pottery needs, but that cost is not born by the discriminating potter.

If everyone in town refuses to be art majors that is something easily fixed by the market, the price of engineers will rise until one comes in from somewhere else, or an art major goes back to school because it is worth it to them.

It is an externality because the cost is not assigned to the correct party and the resulting economic distortion can't be fixed by the market, it needs an external actor (the government) to fix the situation if the situation is to be fixed.

Obviously there are plenty of things in society which are suboptimal that we choose to not act on. And that's fine. If people want to allow inefficiency due to cocaine addiction or whatever then that is what society has decided. What I am saying is that there are costs to these things, these costs are generally ignored in Libertarian analysis that I have seen (or hand waved at with little acknowledgement that government can act on them if society decides it should), but not that they have to be acted on.

And once fans decided that they did prefer higher quality baseball to segregated baseball, it ended.

I thought I was pretty clear that the baseball example was a cost example and not an analogy for the whole situation, but in any event I am pretty sure it was not the fans that put Jackie Robinson on the field, ownership adn managment made that decision. Claiming it was a fan decision runs counter to everything I have ever heard regarding that time (but I was not alive then, so I guess it is possible there was a huge fan movement that forced Jackie onto the Dodgers).

Incorrect analogy. If a town only supports one potter and that potter refuses to serve 10% of the population, then there is no way for the market to fix the problem definitively. A second potter shows up in town, but now there are more potters than the town can support. There is a cost to forcing the dicriminated against to go elsewhere for their pottery needs, but that cost is not born by the discriminating potter.

If the potter is just lazy and only wants to put in the number of hours necessary to serve 90% of the population, the same problem arises. Does that mean the government has the right to compel him to work more hours?

Is that even a cost we should consider?


As for Robinson, of course management made the decision -- but then for the rest of baseball, teams were forced into it because their fans wouldn't tolerate their teams losing just to remain white.

I think the problem with your post as a whole is that it seemingly starts the historical clock today. But the situation in question did not arise today, or even yesterday. It arose decades ago, and history is path dependent. We're not talking about "groups," as if we were still talking about the Branch Davidians; we're talking about what passed for Palestinian leadership, not to mention the larger Arab leadership. Which wanted to kill Jews full stop. That you can find individual Palestinians who were peace-loving doesn't help, because Israel wasn't confronted by them separately, and couldn't deal with them separately. (Note that the situation was very different within the green line, where Israel could, did, and does.) Now, if you're talking about what to do now, I don't actually believe that non-violence is not relevant to the discussion. But the issue is organized violence, not individual violence.

This is an odd critique. Of course any solution begins today - that is when the solution should start. You do realize that there was some history before Gandhi, Mandela, or King began their solution, right? There was backhistory there, their situation did not arise the day they started, or the day before, or the year before.

This is true if a great non-violent leader started today, twenty years from now, or twenty years ago. There is always a history of wrongs done, of violence and evil - always. That is how we get to these situations. And I am stating that the way to resolve those situations in not through violence. It is the easy remedy, but it is usually self defeating.

To be clear violence is hurting both sides, both sides are guilty of this. Like the saying about torture, how everyone involved is damaged, so to it is with violence. Both sides use violence, both sides hurt the other and themselves with it. Both sides would be better off considering non-violent solutut.ions to their problems.

You can accept Isreali claims of evil on the part of Palistians, or Palistian claims of evil on the part of Isreal. I personally suspect there is much truth in both, but I don't care. The way out of the box is not blame, vengence or retribution. that has not worked for centuries and will continue not to work.

Incorrect analogy. If a town only supports one potter and that potter refuses to serve 10% of the population, then there is no way for the market to fix the problem definitively. A second potter shows up in town, but now there are more potters than the town can support. There is a cost to forcing the dicriminated against to go elsewhere for their pottery needs, but that cost is not born by the discriminating potter.

If the potter is just lazy and only wants to put in the number of hours necessary to serve 90% of the population, the same problem arises. Does that mean the government has the right to compel him to work more hours?

Of course the difference is that if the town is 90% white and 10% black, that means that (a) 10% of the "lazy" potter's customers on any given day are likely to be black, and (b) the entire town's population, both white and black, will eventually get their vases or mugs.

It didn't quite work out that way for black people in Jim Crow America.

Is that even a cost we should consider?

Do you mean the cost to a bigoted potter's feelings? Thanks for asking, but hell, no. And check to make sure he's not using lead-based paint, either.

Of course the difference is that if the town is 90% white and 10% black, that means that (a) 10% of the "lazy" potter's customers on any given day are likely to be black, and (b) the entire town's population, both white and black, will eventually get their vases or mugs.

No. You, as usual, insist on changing the hypothetical rather than addressing it. He only works hard enough to serve 90% of the customers in the town, period.

Do you mean the cost to a bigoted potter's feelings? Thanks for asking, but hell, no.

No, I didn't, but thanks for admitting that you don't believe in the first amendment. As Justice Jackson famously said in West Virginia v. Barnette, preventing the government from punishing people for not saluting the flag, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us, except of course for racism."

But that wasn't what I meant, as was obvious from reading the words. What I meant was exactly what I wrote: what if a business owner is lazy, and this leads to 'inefficiency'. Is that a cost we should consider?

No. You, as usual, insist on changing the hypothetical rather than addressing it. He only works hard enough to serve 90% of the customers in the town, period.

That assumes demand is inelastic. The point is that a situation where 100% of the town has only 90% of the amount of pottery they would like is vastly different than a situation where 90% of the town has 100% of the pottery they would like and 10% has 0% of the pottery they would like.

What will happen in the first situation is that the pottery shortage will cause prices to rise, either to the point that people start reducing their consumption or the point where the lazy potter decides it's worth his time to work more (or a combination of both).

I've always pictured Good Face as somewhere between Donald Pleasance as Blofeld and Miek Myers/Dr. Evil

Now THAT's an insult. I'm "The Good Face," not "The Lumpy Face". About the only thing I have in common with Pleasance's Blofeld is the shaved head and the cat. And the secret lair. And the urge to kill minions who fail me. But otherwise we're nothing alike.

Now THAT's an insult. I'm "The Good Face," not "The Lumpy Face". About the only thing I have in common with Pleasance's Blofeld

It could have been worse, I could have compared you to the Charles Gray version of Blofeld
(The Telly Savalas version is a bridge too far, I prefer to forget that ever happened)

But the fact that something is undesirable is not sufficient justification for banning it. Like theft, for example?

What about smoking in public? Smoking is a legal act yet there are less and less areas that are deemed fit to allow people to smoke. So besides the alternative which is to outlaw smoking, what rights do smokers have? I believe we all have experience with smoking or have friend and relatives that smoke or have smoked, so how much is the 2nd hand smoke danger hyped?

If the potter is just lazy and only wants to put in the number of hours necessary to serve 90% of the population, the same problem arises. Does that mean the government has the right to compel him to work more hours?

In your hypothetical the supply curve for pottery shifts, reucing the supply at any given price. The price increases for pottery, and a new equilibrium is reached where pottery demanded = pottery supplied. Markets work great for this hypothetical. In this case those that don't get pottery are the 10% that have the least use for pottery (more accurately there marginal return on buying more pottery is below the new higher cost so they don't buy it.

Basically the 10% (or whatever it ends up with, it might be more if the higher price spurs the potter to make some more) who have the least use of pottery stop buying pottery. this results in an efficient usage of pottery. Markets do this sort of allocation much better than governments, so no the government should not get involved.

However under the scenario where 10% of the population is discriminated against they cannot buy pottery from that person no matter how much value it has for them. They have to purchase it from elsewhere (at a higher cost) or go without. So we are comparing the difference in value from losing 10% of those who value it least, versus 10% who in are likely accross the spectrum, and some at least value it higher than that.

This is a societal deadweight cost. For a given amount of pottery available in our town it is not going to those who value it the most, because 10% are excluded from buying it. The market can't correct for this problem very well, it is an externality, and so needs an outside actor (the government) to correct IF AND ONLY IF society decides that the cost is not worth bearing.

I am not saying every externality must be corrected. I am saying that there are costs to things like discrimination, real societal costs (even ignoring the moral hazards of discrimination) and in my opinion (I am not an expert onLibertarianism, so I could be wrong and it is not a monolith anyway) many Libertarian arguments assume there are not such externality costs, that each person is an island, and that is not true.

EDIT: Economic coke to SdeB for a pithy explanation (In my defense I was in a meeting and I am more wordy in general).

But that wasn't what I meant, as was obvious from reading the words. What I meant was exactly what I wrote: what if a business owner is lazy, and this leads to 'inefficiency'. Is that a cost we should consider?

Shorter version ... potter being lazy (shift in supply curve) does not lead to inefficiency. Discrimination does.

Of course, in your example with the potter, part of what actually would happen is a secondary market would develop.

The real difference between David's example and your example is how evenly (I'd say fairly, but that seems question begging) the costs are ultimately distributed.

Edit: Well, there's an efficiency argument there as well...I'm not sure how strong, though. (Also, to be clear, it's not a desirable circumstance for a great number of reasons beyond mere economics.)

Of course, in your example with the potter, part of what actually would happen is a secondary market would develop.

Correct, and that's why a pottery is not the best example, as you can have a secondary market in pots but not in haircuts or seats on the bus. Nevertheless, I would argue that the need for a secondary market would itself be an example of an undesirable inefficiency, much like a tradition that you should not sell goods or services to someone with a last name beginning with "N". Secondary markets don't really address the problem adequately.

The real difference between David's example and your example is how evenly (I'd say fairly, but that seems question begging) the costs are ultimately distributed.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by "evenly costs are distributed". In my example there is an inefficient distribution of pottery - it is not being distributed by who is willing to pay for it, but by some other characteristic. The fact that secondary channels will spring up may be true, but pretty much by definition they will not be as efficient as the primary channel.

The economy as a whole under Jim Crow is less efficient than one not under Jim Crow. Less aggregate value is achieved along the production possibility frontier (I love that phrase - basically it is the range of things that an economy can produce given a set of inputs). If for no other reason than there is a squandering of human capital. Similarly Saudi Arabia is less efficient thanit could be because it discriminates against women.

There is nothing in economic theory that says you are not allowed to discrimiate, but it does result in less efficiency, i.e. a total cost to society relative to the alternative.

EDIT: Fine SdeB another Coke, Stupid fast typing, fast thinking, grumble, mumble, ....

How many armed teachers? AHA! Shame on you hippies for contributing to the deaths of these innocent children!

Turns out the gunman surrendered after a teacher... talked him down. Your move NRA.

In my example there is an inefficient distribution of pottery - it is not being distributed by who is willing to pay for it, but by some other characteristic.

Yes. That's absolutely true.

There is nothing in economic theory that says you are not allowed to discriminate, but it does result in less efficiency, i.e. a total cost to society relative to the alternative.

The cost here being simply the pottery not getting into the hands of those who value it most, or alternatively, not getting into the hands of those who value it most by the most efficient mechanisms/transactions?

If the potter is just lazy and only wants to put in the number of hours necessary to serve 90% of the population, the same problem arises. Does that mean the government has the right to compel him to work more hours?

Of course the difference is that if the town is 90% white and 10% black, that means that (a) 10% of the "lazy" potter's customers on any given day are likely to be black, and (b) the entire town's population, both white and black, will eventually get their vases or mugs.

No. You, as usual, insist on changing the hypothetical rather than addressing it. He only works hard enough to serve 90% of the customers in the town, period.

Which is fine, so long as the 90% that he serves fall randomly along racial lines. But if that's the case, then in the real world there's no relationship to the issue raised by racial discrimination, and your example is trivial and pointless. Nobody's trying to force an inefficient shop owner to expand his hours, but forcing him to serve the public without regard to race within those hours is another matter altogether. If he refuses to serve the 90th customer because of race, but waves the 91st customer (of his preferred race) into his shop, that's not "inefficiency", that's just racism.

Even Democrats agree - Obama Extremism Pushing America to Civil War!

"[Last night] Pat Caddell, committed Democrat and political film consultant, received a standing ovation from a room full of Texas conservatives...Caddell called such sentiment a “pre-revolutionary condition” and said, “this country is on the verge of an explosion.” He railed against the fiscal cliff deal and the Republicans’ lack of a spine to stand up to the President saying if they were going to cave on the tax hikes, then they should have taken all other bad stuff out of the bill

Please read the comments, as always (First comment: "The explosion already started when Obama STOLE another election.").

For whatever reason I've always pictured Sam as a combination of Edward Scissorhands and the Comic Book Guy in Ihe Simpsons

My manly visage. Complete with blunt weaponry.

While we are discussing externalities here is a much trickier one.

Garbage collection is done by trucks (obviously). A very large percentage of were and tear on your average city road is done by trucks(plus there is more pollution from more trucks, more traffic, and so on). From one perspective it would be ideal to centralize garbage collection in order to minimize damage to the roads (and other effects) - if five different companies collect in every neighborhood then five trucks have to go over every street, when if there was only one company there would be only one truck each week.

This cost is an externality, because it is not paid by the garbage collecting companies or their customers (If I order from a new sixth company thus adding a sixth truck I don't pay any more, for example, though the streets now need more repair and eveyone who pays taxes will pay more).

But centralized garbage collection is prone to all the monopoly problems, inefficiency, slow to change and adapt, higher cost, possible corruption in the assignment of who gets to be the monopoly, and so on.

Economics suggests both centralizing is the right answer (externalities) and the wrong answer (monopoly). How do you balance the two?

Can you tell it is garbage day tomorrow in my neighborhood?

As a side note, the question of "efficiency" in questions of racial discrimination is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. There were plenty of cases under Jim Crow where it would have been "economically inefficient" for a restaurant owner to serve (the black) 10% of the population within his geographical base, because for every black customer he served he might well have lost two white ones. This was one of the many excuses we used to hear from proprietors like Lester Maddox when he fought the CRA of 1964, but it was brushed aside for one obvious reason: If the law also forbade his competition to discriminate, his bigoted customers would have had no alternatives other than permanently choosing to eat at home, which was properly seen as their problem alone, and not anyone else's.

My manly visage. Complete with blunt weaponry.

I don't believe it. Where's the foam tomahawk?

As a side note, the question of "efficiency" in questions of racial discrimination is interesting but ultimately irrelevant.

Well, externalities are a pretty important way of arguing against Libertarian ideas. Since Libertarians tend to argue from the standpoint of contracts, one way to argue against them is to assert that interests of other people are being affected who aren't parties to the contract. Consequently, the contract in question is an invalid way -- by the Libertarian's own standards -- of allocating or reallocating rights.

[Last night] Pat Caddell, committed Democrat and political film consultant, received a standing ovation from a room full of Texas conservatives...Caddell called such sentiment a “pre-revolutionary condition” and said, “this country is on the verge of an explosion.” He railed against the fiscal cliff deal and the Republicans’ lack of a spine to stand up to the President saying if they were going to cave on the tax hikes, then they should have taken all other bad stuff out of the bill

Caddell used to wander into my book shop on occasion back in the 80's, and even then you could tell he wasn't quite all there. It was easy to see that he had some kind of bee in his bonnet, but at the time it wasn't quite so clear that he was going to wind up in Dick Morris territory.

But it happens to the best (or the worst) of them. A good sized chunk of FDR's closest people wound up on the right wing fringes by 1936 or 1940, including Al Smith, Raymond Moley, Hugh Johnson and Jim Farley. And the cruelest cut of all? Babe ####### Ruth, a lifelong Democrat, endorsed the red-baiting Thomas ####### Dewey for president in 1944. That one really hurt.

including Al Smith,

Well obviously he was just doing what the Pope told him to do.

As a side note, the question of "efficiency" in questions of racial discrimination is interesting but ultimately irrelevant.

Well, externalities are a pretty important way of arguing against Libertarian ideas. Since Libertarians tend to argue from the standpoint of contracts, one way to argue against them is to assert that interests of other people are being affected who aren't parties to the contract. Consequently, the contract in question is an invalid way -- by the Libertarian's own standards -- of allocating or reallocating rights.

Granted, it is (and was often used as, BITD) a good debating point in arguing with Libertarians. But as I noted in my example above, even in cases where public accommodations discrimination happens to be economically efficient for an individual owner, that still doesn't justify letting him discriminate against entire racial groups in order to accommodate his existing customers' bigotry.

including Al Smith,

Well obviously he was just doing what the Pope told him to do.

And the Babe, too, as clearly it was part of the multiple confessions / absolutions package deal he had with Cardinal Spellman.

Well there's a big difference there - a vote for Babe Ruth was merely a vote for good baseball.

Two U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents “facilitated a sexual encounter” between a prostitute and a U.S. Secret Service agent days before President Barack Obama visited Colombia for a summit meeting in April 2012, according to a Justice Department investigation obtained exclusively by NBC News.
A summary of the findings of the investigation, included in a Dec. 20 letter from the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General to Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, indicated that a third DEA agent present on the night of the incident was not involved in procuring the prostitute for the Secret Service agent.
“While DEA agent #3 was present for a dinner that took place earlier that evening with the USSS agent and the other two DEA agents, he was not present in the residence when the sexual encounter took place and played no role in facilitating it,” the summary said.
All three DEA special agents admitted that they had paid for sexual services of a prostitute, the investigation also found, and “used their DEA Blackberry devices to arrange such activities.” In addition, the report says the agents tried to destroy incriminating information or initially lied to investigators about the incidents. All three agents have high-security clearances.

It is hilarious that two DEA agents are the ones who created one of the major controversies of Obama's presidencies. (That didn't have anything to do with Obama personally.)

The NRA emerged from a high-profile meeting Thursday with Vice President Joe Biden and immediately made clear it won’t support any new gun laws.
“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,” the NRA said in a statement. “While claiming that no policy proposals would be ‘prejudged,’ this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/joe-biden-gun-proposals-by-tuesday-86014.html#ixzz2HcArlcAl

edit: At this point, I would invite pro-gun groups who are NOT the NRA to the table and see what they say. No reason to think the NRA is the only gun group out there.

Customer makes a point with a lack of a tip

Well this is one form of non-violent political protesting

Not that it's surprising.

Here's Fox News confusing the idea of a coin-shaped pile of platinum worth $1 trillion and a $1 trillion coin that happens to be made out of platinum and can be of any size. We saw earlier this week that the National Republican Campaign Committee also doesn't understand how coins work ...

Customer makes a point with a lack of a tip

Well this is one form of non-violent political protesting

People like this see themselves as some Randian hero from The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged- the fact that they merely look like complete ######## to non-objectivists is pretty incomprehensible to them

I don't think this affects my basic point about how I interpreted your previous comments. That said, it's an interesting question whether the common law rule for innkeepers would have included Woolworth's.

Don't you think it's more interesting to have a conversation about what I meant as opposed to what your interpretation of what I meant?

Was it ever legitimately raised as a potential violation of state or federal case law when Woolworth's refused to integrate their lunch counter? Would it have been a winner in court prior to the CRA? I think the answer to both answers is no.

As it turns out, this is a case where market forces DID work; Woolworth's integrated prior to possessing a legal obligation to do so.

I am suggesting that when an actor in society does an action it has a cost to me and to society even if it does not "violate autonomy". I am saying that your philosophy is drawing lines that are much fuzzier in the real world. I am not saying cost is the ultimate aribitor, just it is an ignored factor in what you said.

I understand your position, but it's not that I'm ignoring the cost. I'm acknowledging it. It is not a matter of lack of awareness, but a matter of rejecting it as a threshold to violate autonomy. "People will die in the streets" or "society will collapse under the weight of social unrest" are costs that merit such a violation. "People won't get to enter private property where they are unwelcome" is not.

People like this see themselves as some Randian hero from The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged- the fact that they merely look like complete ######## to non-objectivists is pretty incomprehensible to them

Mr. Pink's whole tipping speech could easily pass for some of the posts I've read around here.

On the subject of tipping, the reasons why Europeans don't tip is because their service wages is already reflected in the dishes prices.

If a town only supports one potter and that potter refuses to serve 10% of the population, then there is no way for the market to fix the problem definitively. A second potter shows up in town, but now there are more potters than the town can support. There is a cost to forcing the dicriminated against to go elsewhere for their pottery needs, but that cost is not born by the discriminating potter.

It sounds like that town actually supports 1.11 potters, not one potter; otherwise the 90% guy can't make a living. But there are a number of market solutions:

1) Someone else with the skills to work as a potter that has some other profession opens his shop one day per week to accommodate the portion of the population that needs pottery services. Nothing stops him from taking some of the 90% if he charges competitively, allowing him to send the discriminating potter out of business. He can work a little harder than the other guy for a little less per client, and drive him out of business with competition.

2) A potter travels to ten towns in the area each week, providing 4-5 hours per week per town of service (sufficient to cover 11% of a full town's pottery needs).

3) The 10% of the population assembles in peaceful protest outside the discriminating potter's shop, restricting and inconveniencing his business until he is obligated to change his policies.

4) The 10% of the population relocates to a place where they are not a small enough minority to ignore.

Of course, this is an outrageously small town. In a town that supports ten potters, where only one is willing to service 10% of the population, that one potter has no competition to fill his shop each week, while the others must compete with each other. That 10% of the population might even pay a premium to the accommodating potter; perhaps the minority workers sell him supplies at reduced cost, lowering his overhead; perhaps this potter's reputation spreads beyond this town and other people come to him rather than go to their local potter.

These sorts of solutions don't change things overnight, and they inconvenience the minority population, but they provide change without a government mandate. There is also the advantage of providing the sort of change that makes it impractical to discriminate, rather than simply illegal. Remember, enforcement has its own cost to society, and that cost is eliminated.

Was it ever legitimately raised as a potential violation of state or federal case law when Woolworth's refused to integrate their lunch counter? Would it have been a winner in court prior to the CRA? I think the answer to both answers is no.

That's true, but it's hard to say how it might have played out if the CRB hadn't been in its final stages of debate when a case that was based on a similar argument (IIRC it was Rock Hill). And in fact I think there were at least two justices (Douglas and Goldberg) who argued that in effect the 14th amendment was a de facto public accommodations law all by itself. Of course this is based on a 49 year old memory that I haven't refreshed lately, so it could probably use a tracer.

As it turns out, this is a case where market forces DID work; Woolworth's integrated prior to possessing a legal obligation to do so.

Only in the border and Upper South states like North Carolina, where in some cases they integrated their lunch counters in the larger cities as early as 1960. But not in states like Mississippi or Alabama, where they deferred to "local custom." It took the CRA to force them to integrate there.

However under the scenario where 10% of the population is discriminated against they cannot buy pottery from that person no matter how much value it has for them. They have to purchase it from elsewhere (at a higher cost) or go without. So we are comparing the difference in value from losing 10% of those who value it least, versus 10% who in are likely accross the spectrum, and some at least value it higher than that.

If the discriminating potter has a choice between the "proper demand" of 90% production serving 90% of the population, isn't his profit margin worse than the "extra demand" of 90% production serving 100% of the population? It seems to me that he's paying a very direct personal cost because he can't charge as much due to the artificially low demand. In that sense, he is bearing the cost of his behavior.

Don't you think it's more interesting to have a conversation about what I meant as opposed to what your interpretation of what I meant?

Sure, now that you've clarified your point.

Was it ever legitimately raised as a potential violation of state or federal case law when Woolworth's refused to integrate their lunch counter? Would it have been a winner in court prior to the CRA? I think the answer to both answers is no.

AFAIK, Woolworth's wasn't violating any law, state or federal, in segregating its lunch counters. That was my original point, namely that much of Jim Crow had nothing to do with state laws.

As it turns out, this is a case where market forces DID work; Woolworth's integrated prior to possessing a legal obligation to do so.

Treating sit-ins and boycotts as "market forces" strikes me as a radical interpretation of the text.

Edit to add that Andy's point is well-taken. Victory in one store in one state hardly meant an end to Jim Crow.

Customer makes a point with a lack of a tip

Find that guy and punch him in the throat.

On the subject of tipping, the reasons why Europeans don't tip is because their service wages is already reflected in the dishes prices.

Most service occupations in Europe are, *gasp*, unionized, so they actually make a living wage without the custom of hoping for largesse from the customer.

That certainly seems to be the clear implication of what Joe is saying, although he'll probably now pretend that he didn't really mean it that way. He's the Artfullest Dodger in the history of BTF, bless his heart.

Andy, I know you and a couple of your amigos are trying to turn the above into the latest BBTF meme, but I can't help but note your continued lack of examples. I'd really like to see a list of all the positions I've taken here that I subsequently tried to weasel my way out of.

Everyone is making the assumption that the last 10% of the population that isn't served by the potter is on an equal or similar economic footing as the rest of the society, when its more likely that 10% is poorer than the other 90%. What made Jim Crow and Segregation 'work' for so long that it punished the same people who could least afford higher prices.

But that also meant that the people who were discriminating didn't suffer as much of an economic punishment as they should of because the percentage of the population they were writing off (People of color) didn't have as much money as the part of the society they did cater to.

People like this see themselves as some Randian hero from The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged- the fact that they merely look like complete ######## to non-objectivists is pretty incomprehensible to them

Great comment:

Remember the days when Republican diners used to leave 40% tips along with little cards that read "Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, I can afford to tip you twice what any Democrat would"?

Yeah, I don't either.

On the subject of tipping, the reasons why Europeans don't tip is because their service wages is already reflected in the dishes prices.

Most service occupations in Europe are, *gasp*, unionized, so they actually make a living wage without the custom of hoping for largesse from the customer.

My father was a waiter and Austrian so he knew he was in trouble any time he had to serve someone from the Continent. And I can attest that the IRS doesnt care what the views are on tipping as they assume the waiter is going to make 15% and they tax him or her accordingly.

Most service occupations in Europe are, *gasp*, unionized, so they actually make a living wage without the custom of hoping for largesse from the customer.

I don't mind tipping, its when a waiter or waitress thinks he should get 20% of the meal is when I raise my eyebrow.

I assume 20 and work back from there for bad service. I've worked that industry. Sometimes waitstaff just have bad days.

Economics suggests both centralizing is the right answer (externalities) and the wrong answer (monopoly). How do you balance the two?

Here's how you slice the Gordian knot: charge the trucks appropriately for the damage they cause, so that they pay the damage rather than the taxpayers. If it's priced properly, then there will be a strong incentive to increase efficiency throughout the system.

When I screw up at my day job, they don't dock my pay on the spot, they say something about it. I do the same when dining out.

That seems uncalled for, as robinred actually is an adult in the room. You don't see him engaging in these back-and-forths. — DMN

The only time he's "in the room" is when he does his shtick as the self-appointed Voice of Reason at BBTF. I can't remember the last time he actually participated in a political discussion here. He just seems to hang around and wait for opportunities to pop in and show everyone how he's above it all.

***

I resent that. I can be just as immature and stupid as anyone else here, when I set my mind to it. I spoke up because I think that there is a difference between what happened with Face and Sam, and just calling a guy an idiot or evil or whatever. — robinred

Still waiting for your answer re: Voxter calling me "Eichmann" a couple weeks ago. Was that not more slanderous than Good Face's comment toward Sam yesterday? How come you and your (allegedly) non-"tribalist" liberal friends didn't say anything?

(To be clear, I really don't care that 'robinred' didn't say anything at the time. I'm just calling out his B.S. shtick for what it is — B.S.)

What do you tip for take-out?

I usually throw in a buck or two, but no (forgetting) way am I paying 20% for someone to pack the order and ring me up.

For take-out? Usually my change. But then, its usually for fast food places anyway. Those places understand they're not living for their tips.

Most service occupations in Europe are, *gasp*, unionized, so they actually make a living wage without the custom of hoping for largesse from the customer.

What, really? The cafe workers? I thought they were just paid a real wage - because having a "menial" job was not considered to be social anathema in Europe.

Caddell used to wander into my book shop on occasion back in the 80's, and even then you could tell he wasn't quite all there. It was easy to see that he had some kind of bee in his bonnet, but at the time it wasn't quite so clear that he was going to wind up in Dick Morris territory.

But it happens to the best (or the worst) of them. A good sized chunk of FDR's closest people wound up on the right wing fringes by 1936 or 1940, including Al Smith, Raymond Moley, Hugh Johnson and Jim Farley. And the cruelest cut of all? Babe ####### Ruth, a lifelong Democrat, endorsed the red-baiting Thomas ####### Dewey for president in 1944. That one really hurt.

Heh... Wasn't/isn't Pat Caddell best described as a committed anti-Democrat since the late 80s? I have a vague recollection that he had a particularly nasty and protracted fight with... someone... Bob Shrum maybe? in the late 80s that led to a series of lawsuits and Caddell then becoming the go-to guy when you needed a 'Democrat' to trash Democrats. My recollection is that in effect - Shrummie got to stay in the cool kids Democrat club, Caddell was banished, and he's been forever trying to get back at the Democratic establishment ever since.

I know he still pops up in Democratic campaigns occasionally -- I think he ran a Democratic primary senate campaign a few cycles back... maybe the Sestak campaign?

He's always fun, though... sort of like a crazy, but still occasionally relevant Bob Beckel. If you want to run an 'outsider' campaign against an 'establishment' Democrat - I'm pretty sure he'll also work for free ;-)

What do you tip for take-out?

I usually throw in a buck or two, but no (forgetting) way am I paying 20% for someone to pack the order and ring me up.

I usually do 10%....

That's probably high - but back in my bartending days, I hated take-out orders... we didn't have a "house" ID, so the bartender had to ring them up under his ID, which meant they got calc'ed against my sales (and as a result, went into the formula for the minimum tips I had to claim).

I never really got that upset when people didn't tip me, though -- I knew it was more a screw job by the establishment that didn't want a "house" ID that could be taken advantage of because managers would be too lazy to check it regularly for scams -- I just do it myself now because of that.

Discrimination is only a serious issue when it's on the dominate side (wealth, population, power, etc.) of the equation.

If some shop out here in Bayview/Hunters Point won't serve me because I am whitey - well, so what? If they choose not to serve Brown people, well, that would very silly because they would have almost no customers. They would also be risking legal and illegal retribution (probably with little sympathy from the police). A "Fresh N Easy" opened up in this neighborhood 6-8 months ago... and (because they don't have any cashiers) they refused to accept WIC (foodstamps). This caused something of a backlash on the only "non discount" supermarket within less than 3 miles of Candlestick Park. We actually refused to go to there because of this.

Now (they updated their machines or have human-assist) they accept WIC.

See, we don't need anti-discrimination laws like the CRA!

Well, except I left out the other possibility - when the dominant or majority groups discriminate against the minority/powerless groups. And this is why lefty blowhards say (not wholly incorrectly) that there can be no Racism without a Power imbalance. It's why the CRA and other legislations AND Federal enforcmment was necessary. And is similarly why I have more sympathy for the Palestinians over the Isrealis.

Treating sit-ins and boycotts as "market forces" strikes me as a radical interpretation of the text.

Why? It's all part and parcel of the cost of doing business in a particular way.

Everyone is making the assumption that the last 10% of the population that isn't served by the potter is on an equal or similar economic footing as the rest of the society, when its more likely that 10% is poorer than the other 90%. What made Jim Crow and Segregation 'work' for so long that it punished the same people who could least afford higher prices.

This is part of why I'm in favor of a base level of necessary services provided by the government. Once you're covered with food, shelter, medicine, and education, it's a lot harder for people to take too much advantage of you, because you can do without a lot of that other stuff.

But that also meant that the people who were discriminating didn't suffer as much of an economic punishment as they should of because the percentage of the population they were writing off (People of color) didn't have as much money as the part of the society they did cater to.

I don't see that as a particularly fixable problem. If I can afford to write off a whole segment of the population because they're poor and don't affect my profit margin, then forcing me to integrate doesn't really help poor minorities. I can price them out of my business if my customers really want to pay a premium to be free from them.

No, David, it would not help to quote the Second Treatise because, *gasp*, Locke is also wrong. Descartes? Wrong! You are your body. You don't own your body. Any proposition depending on the notion of this duality distinction is incorrect from the start. — Sam H.

Just for the sake of discussion, let's say one of Sam's attempted neck-stabbings goes wrong and he lops off a couple of his fingers, and then I pick them up off the sidewalk (while wearing industrial-strength plastic gloves, of course). Under what legal theory, other than ownership, would I be compelled to return said fingers to Sam (for attempted reattachment) rather than be free to toss them down the nearest sewer grate?

Victory in one store in one state hardly meant an end to Jim Crow.

One store at a time, one town at a time. Look, I'm not saying it's an easy process or a quick one.

I also think that the South is, generally speaking, still paying the economic price of racism. It's not just the black people that are poor in the red states. That's small comfort to people that lived back then, but it does set an example for the people today.

Assume you were permitted to open a restaurant that only served white people. Do you think you wouldn't pay a serious price for that discrimination?

What do you tip for take-out?

A minimum of $2, $3 when it breaks $20, $4 when it breaks $30, and $5 on $50+. I usually pay on credit and tip in cash.

EDIT: Sorry, misread that as delivery. I don't tip anything for take-out unless the service is exceptional.

Of course, this is an outrageously small town. In a town that supports ten potters, where only one is willing to service 10% of the population, that one potter has no competition to fill his shop each week, while the others must compete with each other.

That's how black businessmen, who were willing to sell to both black and white customers, came to dominate the South.

I don't know what you used as your source, but the above is fairly ludicrous. Using the list of per capita gun ownership at Wikipedia, I see maybe three countries in the top 25 that might be considered a "tyranny."

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/rate_of_civilian_firearm_possession

versus your cited wikipedia article which states at the top

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (October 2011}Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross, Martin Killias, Urs Hepp, Erika Gadola, Matthias Bopp, Christoph Lauber, Ulrich Schnyder, Felix Gutzwiller, Wulf Rössler)

Granted, I have doubts on some of the gunpolicy.org's number as well, seeing that they seem to vastly overstate the # of guns in Taiwan unless they know something we don't here. (it says Taiwan has 4.4 guns per 100, from living here, I have a hardtime believing it is even 1 per 100. and because this was brought up recently in local news, they interviewed everyone from police to mafias who all agreed that there's no way that's anything close to accurate.)

However, that site is certainly much more academically rigorous than Wikipedia. which cites a single source .

That might be the most cogent hypothetical you've ever posted here, Joe.

I think that we all agree that one should return severed body parts, nail clipping or other excreta to their source. So, yeah, I guess he "owns" his finger bits. I mean, there are littering laws and the like. But they are not his "self". If you were to make a lovely necklace out of the fingers, you would not "own" Sam.

Why? It's all part and parcel of the cost of doing business in a particular way.

Maybe, but it's not a market cost in any ordinary sense of that term.

One store at a time, one town at a time. Look, I'm not saying it's an easy process or a quick one.

It certainly wasn't easy. It took 6 months, with lots of protestors jailed for trespassing. And that was in a uniquely favorable situation, what with Woolworth's being a nationwide business subject to pressure in the North.

Segregation lasted 90 years before the CRA. It would have lasted forever at the rates implied by the protests. Even after the CRA it continued for quite a while.

I also think that the South is, generally speaking, still paying the economic price of racism.

Agreed. It's not just the price for past conduct, though. It's the whole oligarchical government which has dominated the South since 1607. And the oligarchy+racism makes Southerners resist funding public goods, which the region has always lacked.

Assume you were permitted to open a restaurant that only served white people. Do you think you wouldn't pay a serious price for that discrimination?

Depends on what you mean by "a serious price". Sure you'd forego opportunities, but that doesn't matter to some people. There are good livings to be made selling kosher foods, even if the market is quite limited.

If a restaurant owner today were known to discriminate, that would probably affect his/her business in most places. But not in all.

What do you tip for take-out?

I tip about the same, depending on how much loose cash I have on me. (I prefer to tip with cash.) Pizza and chinese takeout is only going to cost so much, so tip was never going to be huge anyways, and instead of carrying to my table 25 feet from the kitchen, they're carrying it five miles. I think it's worth it.

Today, right now, there would be a market in plenty of American cities for a restaurant that openly had a "no blacks" policy.

I tip about the same, depending on how much loose cash I have on me. (I prefer to tip with cash.) Pizza and chinese takeout is only going to cost so much, so tip was never going to be huge anyways, and instead of carrying to my table 25 feet from the kitchen, they're carrying it five miles. I think it's worth it.

I tip about 10% for delivery, which is I think what you're talking about. I believe that is the default on Seamlessweb. It is also the max that my firm allows us to tip on delivery when we work late and order in (technically you can tip more out-of-pocket, but you won't get reimbursed for it).

I don't tip for takeout (where I am picking up the food). Who would I give the tip to, from a practical standpoint?

Delivery, I will tip 15-20% because that job sucks and I feel for the d00ds driving all around town.

But take-out, where you call ahead and go pick up the order, that's different.

Regarding China.

Good question. China is very large (duh) which is a blessing and a curse, but from a statistical level you always have to remember it, because in total numbers they are always huge, but the rate stats not so much. To my mind the biggest dangers to China are ...
* Economic growth is not a linear or constant process, and is much easier when the "rate stats" are really low, and gets harder the further along you are.
* Governmental stewardship, especially with little corruption, is critical to continued growth. China is a governmentally corrupt country and that is going to really hinder them going forward.
* Economically authoriatarian regimes do very well historically with industry and much less well with post-industrial economies. Many authoritarian regimes (USSR is a great example) do well on the industry portion of the growth curve, but find the switch to post-industrial economics much harder to handle, this is because heavy industry is much more amenable to authoritarian regulation. It is unclear how well China will be able to handle this transition.
* China is really big and diverse. This means handling long term the impacts of differing regions growing differently, and eventually passing through various stages of growth. China handled factories flowing from outside China into China very well, will it also handle factories leaving one part of China for another as economic conditions within the country change, or will it ossify and allow the first movers enough political leverage to prevent creative destruction within China? It is alwyas easier to have the destruction part of the equation happen elsewhere, can they handle it when it happens in China?
* They have had a really good run, but inevitably rough spots will happen. Can they handle the bad (whatever it happens to be) appropriately? Don't judge how well a country will do over the long haul by their best times, but their worst.

Of course China has much going for it to, so I would not count them out, but I don't think they are destined to be the world power anytime real soon - a world power certainly, but they are already that.

The biggest problem in the slightly longer term (not really though, it should be abundantly obvious within 10 years seeing how some of the earliest 1 child kids are now in their late 30s). would be demographics, the 1 child policy is going to be a disastor to handle down the road and unlike Taiwan, it is much more difficult to use foreign brides to settle this problem given the slight problem of how the PRC makes up 1/4 of the world's population.

In realistic terms, the key issue most commoners care about in China is .

A. the Huko policy : this is perhaps the source of the single greatest complaint, in China changing residence registration is very difficult, especially for the poor, but the problem is that well over half of China's poorer working age adults moved to bigger cities to seek employment. where their lack of official registration of residence deny them of even very basic things like... public schooling for their kids(!!) . yet these are the same folks that are least likely going to be able to afford private schools, this is why a lot of them keep their kids back at home with relatives or grandparents. which creates a world of problem of their own. others try to put their kids into really poorly run low cost private schools that are often safety hazards. let alone quality educations.



B. the One child policy : if pro-lifer goes to China their head will probably explode... hell they make pro-choice folks in the US totally pro-life in China. even outside of the obvious morality debate, where some practice in China is truly awful, this is clearly the source of it's looming demographic bomb.


C. corruption : this isn't a big secret, and some muse that China nowadays probably execute more corrupt official then murderers. there are strong showings to say they'll crack down, but the general issue is that the rule of law is fairly unestablished in China, judges are unprotected, especially when any case involve the CCP. Granted, nowadays the general agreement is that local level official is fair game, but as soon as those things sees connection to bigshots at the central it changes big time. But it is widely reported and acknowledged that a group of a few hundred family pretty much owns 90% of China's wealthy, and those are the familes of the original CCP founders at the top.

D. inequality : anyone can see that there are both a crazy wealth gap and also a big regional gap. at this point because there are enough people that significantly improved their livelihood it has not truly boiled over, but increasingly the prospect of the new Chinese generation have been dimmer. this is a fairly common theme of course, any developed / developing country see this, the older generation remains unretired and new opportunities don't come up nearly as often etc... at this point this part is not quite as serious a complaint as the former 3, but it's probably going to be soon.


China did hit some bumps before, they had declined a bit during the 97 financial crisis (relatively speaking) but they were also still at a much lower point back then, it is unclear what the next one will look like. increasingly there is also the problem that as China's wealth expand so obviously will it's power (real or precieved). which is reopening a lot of unsettled dispute that had been mostly dormant for the last 30-40 years. (which are not all unilaterally China's issue, pretty much everyone's claim have some overlap with everyone else and / or a lot of hypocrisy , but China obviously will have the bigger target on it's back.)

Well, in law, for a long time now in the history of civilizations, there has been, and is, the concept of attaining ownership of property by adverse possession and acquisitive prescription (squatting and statute of limitations are different legal nomenclature in other jurisdictions). Would that apply to people if they are property?

When you tip you should tell whomever you're giving the tip that your deducting the taxes from the tip since they aren't going to do it. The look on their face will be priceless.

Me, I've got all the attributes of Larry David, except money and a sense of humor.

Apparently I'm Mick Foley, except not awesome.

My manly visage. Complete with blunt weaponry.

I could see this as maybe the Irish guy from the I.T. Crowd.

I don't know much about tipping, except that here in the UK you're not expecting to tip for pints (and there is no tax added). Which makes drinking about a million times cheaper than in Canada. I just had a bottle of Rochefort at a pub tonight for less than the price of a pint of generic beer in Toronto.

In general though, I see tipping as the one moment in my life in which I get to pretend like I'm wealthier and more important than I am. So I usually tip more to servers for giving me that opportunity.

.

That certainly seems to be the clear implication of what Joe is saying, although he'll probably now pretend that he didn't really mean it that way. He's the Artfullest Dodger in the history of BTF, bless his heart.

Andy, I know you and a couple of your amigos are trying to turn the above into the latest BBTF meme, but I can't help but note your continued lack of examples. I'd really like to see a list of all the positions I've taken here that I subsequently tried to weasel my way out of.

Let's just stick with the comment you posted back in #635.

Interesting how liberals lament that majority rule brought with it Jim Crow laws, but now want the Second Amendment — which, incidentally, could have helped ensure that the Freedom Riders weren't "risking their lives" simply by riding a bus, and will help to ensure that future unpopular or oppressed people/groups won't have to face similar threats while defenseless — to be run through the shredder.

The "clear implication" I referred to was the implication in that comment of yours I just quoted that the southern freedom movement would have been wise to have taken up arms against the whites who threatened it with violence. If you want to seriously defend that proposition, I'll gladly retract the "weaseling" comment, although I might want to nominate you for the looney bin instead.

I gave you the example of Robert Williams who took up the idea you're advocating, and wound up a political exile. You never responded to that, but you're welcome to do so now, or you're welcome to cite any specific examples in the history of the civil rights movement where armed self-defense in public demonstrations** ever got it anywhere.

**Which is what the Freedom Riders were engaged in. We are not talking about keeping a gun in one's home, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Taking up arms worked out great for Nat Turner!

Taking up arms worked out great for Nat Turner!

And Stokely Carmichael, and H. Rap Brown, and Ralph Featherstone, and Huey P. Newton, and "Li'l" Bobby Hutton, and Robert Williams, and the Black Muslims, and so on. Political geniuses, every last one of them.

Of course in the case of Nat Turner, there was no viable alternative to arms that could have presented itself to a Virginia slave in 1831, so in fact it's a bit unfair to put him in with that above collection of Kehoskieites.

If the discriminating potter has a choice between the "proper demand" of 90% production serving 90% of the population, isn't his profit margin worse than the "extra demand" of 90% production serving 100% of the population? It seems to me that he's paying a very direct personal cost because he can't charge as much due to the artificially low demand. In that sense, he is bearing the cost of his behavior.

But it isn't about cost, it's about freedom, as you yourself said.

Assuming there are competing societies, the less prejudiced is going to be more productive, because less time and resources are wasted making judgments that don't line up with the facts. As will a society where parents keep their children from sticking forks into wall sockets, rather than giving them the freedom to do so.

Only lurking, but I tip $1-2 for takeout and ~20-25% on delivery. Cash whenever I have it, even if I pay by credit.

YR, the comments in that Breitbart link! Ye Gods:

Already there is talk of removing term limits for the Presidency for a third and possibly fourth and fifth terms...when you remove these terms you are setting up a monarcy. Were you asleep when Obama stole this election and so many of our military were denied the right to vote this last November? Were you asleep when Obama just recently cut the defense budget to feed our military a single meal...breakfast? Why would he do this? Obama is preparing for a war of his deliberate intent and making to establish himself as King.

Obama has been trained from birth to destroy this country by those who seek a one world government. It's in the Bible. It's going to happen. (It won't be Obama that accomplishes it.) You can get saved and avoid it, but it cannot be stopped.

No question we are in the midst of a 'Hostile Takeover' by the well sponsored communist left. The left's Goebbels propaganda, lies & deceit are the order of the day.

There's also some ACORN references, all kinds of good stuff.

Obama has been trained from birth to destroy this country by those who seek a one world government.

That's not new news. We've known this since 2008.

Andy, I know you and a couple of your amigos are trying to turn the above into the latest BBTF meme, but I can't help but note your continued lack of examples. I'd really like to see a list of all the positions I've taken here that I subsequently tried to weasel my way out of.

Let's just stick with the comment you posted back in #635.

I'm the "Artfullest Dodger in the history of BTF" because you assume I'll try to backtrack from a comment from which I've made no attempt to backtrack? That's funny.

The "clear implication" I referred to was the implication in that comment of yours I just quoted that the southern freedom movement would have been wise to have taken up arms against the whites who threatened it with violence. If you want to seriously defend that proposition, I'll gladly retract the "weaseling" comment, although I might want to nominate you for the looney bin instead.

No, I have no interest in retracting that statement. How long should oppressed people wage a non-violent campaign to win the "admiration" of their oppressors?

I'm the "Artfullest Dodger in the history of BTF" because you assume I'll try to backtrack from a comment from which I've made no attempt to backtrack? That's funny.

So you think armed resistance would have been a more effective way to end Jim Crow than civil disobedience? And you don't think the support of white people was at all important to getting the federal government to intervene in support of civil rights?

That's how black businessmen, who were willing to sell to both black and white customers, came to dominate the South.

Bad government was a significant obstacle. Not only the laws themselves that prevented equality, but the lack of enforcement against those who strong-armed people trying to integrate.

If the sheriff looks the other way while thugs burn down your restaurant, that's worse than having no sheriff at all.

So you think armed resistance would have been a more effective way to end Jim Crow than civil disobedience? And you don't think the support of white people was at all important to getting the federal government to intervene in support of civil rights?

The support of white people was nice but it's mostly irrelevant in this discussion. If those white people had chosen not to support the end of Jim Crow — after 90 years — should blacks just have shrugged their shoulders and kept trudging to the back of the bus? Should they have spent additional generations attempting to win the "admiration," as Andy put it, of their white oppressors, even if those efforts might have been a fool's errand?

The lefties here generally seem to have no problem with the government using guns to collect taxes, or, as we learned last week, to raid and even slaughter religious cult members. It's bizarre how they recoil in horror at the thought of using guns for reasons of much greater importance.

Assuming there are competing societies, the less prejudiced is going to be more productive, because less time and resources are wasted making judgments that don't line up with the facts. As will a society where parents keep their children from sticking forks into wall sockets, rather than giving them the freedom to do so.

Sure, and if the government wants to prevent children from sticking forks into wall sockets, perhaps that might be reasonable. Adults, on the other hand, get to choose to hurt themselves if they wish.

In what sense and to what extent to adults get to hurt themselves if they wish? In the sense that they can't be stopped? In the sense they can't help themselves? What if hurting themselves cost someone else--or costs all of us through our social institutions?

And you libertarians, don't forget

876.

I'd like to know more about this "a person is property/I own me" thing.

The support of white people was nice but it's mostly irrelevant in this discussion.

No, it was crucial. The federal governmant that used its guns in support of desegregation *was* largely white people.

If those white people had chosen not to support the end of Jim Crow — after 90 years — should blacks just have shrugged their shoulders and kept trudging to the back of the bus?

I don't know. Luckily we didn't have to find out the answer because civil disobedience was successful in beginning to bring about the end of Jim Crow, and in far fewer than 90 years (most people put the beginning of the civil disobedience movement around 1955).

Should they have spent additional generations attempting to win the "admiration," as Andy put it, of their white oppressors, even if those efforts might have been a fool's errand?

"Admiration" is probably the wrong word for it. But not frightening white people, and rather forcing them to confront the full logical implications of their segregated system, proved to be a winning strategy.

Ayn Rand understood civil disobedience; that's in large part what Atlas Shrugged was about; it's certainly what Hank Rearden was doing when he told the government that it would have to actually point guns at him in order to take his property "at gunpoint".

The lefties here generally seem to have no problem with the government using guns to collect taxes, or, as we learned last week, to raid and even slaughter religious cult members. It's bizarre how they recoil in horror at the thought of using guns for reasons of much greater importance.

What are you talking about? It's not the "lefties" who use images of the "New Black Panthers" to inspire fear in their electoral base.

Andy's and my point is not that using guns to oppose oppression is wrong (although it may be depending on how you do it), it's that it's ineffective when the oppressed don't have the numbers or the resources (unless they are resisting an occupying force, in which case it sometimes works). It's certainly less effective than civil disobedience has proven to be.

But keep up the good fight against those straw men, Joe.

Assuming there are competing societies, the less prejudiced is going to be more productive, because less time and resources are wasted making judgments that don't line up with the facts.

Well, it depends on how you define "productive".

i am fairly sure that linking to this will cause more harm than good, but it is fairly interesting:

the strange politics of disgust


edit:
i also think it is enlightening as an exploration into why republicans have maintained strong numbers despite universal disgust at a political environment that they have largely created.

No, it was crucial. The federal governmant that used its guns in support of desegregation *was* largely white people.

And if more of the black people had guns, they probably wouldn't have needed to wait so long for — and rely so much on — the intervention of white people with guns.

I don't know. Luckily we didn't have to find out the answer because civil disobedience was successful in beginning to bring about the end of Jim Crow, and in far fewer than 90 years (most people put the beginning of the civil disobedience movement around 1955).

You don't know? In an age in which not wanting to pay for Sandra Fluke's morning-after pills constitutes a "war on women," you're saying "you don't know" if black people should have tolerated Jim Crow for another 90 years on top of the first 90?

Also, the "far fewer than 90 years" claim is a stretch. Even if we mark the end of Jim Crow at 1955, that means it existed for about 90 years. (My initial number was off by 10 years — i.e., 1865 to 1965 is 100 years.)

"Admiration" is probably the wrong word for it. But not frightening white people, and rather forcing them to confront the full logical implications of their segregated system, proved to be a winning strategy.

Sure, after hundreds of years of slavery and then 80 or 90 years of Jim Crow.

Andy's and my point is not that using guns to oppose oppression is wrong (although it may be depending on how you do it), it's that it's ineffective when the oppressed don't have the numbers or the resources (unless they are resisting an occupying force, in which case it sometimes works). It's certainly less effective than civil disobedience has proven to be.

But keep up the good fight against those straw men, Joe.

The idea that the use of guns is "certainly less effective than civil disobedience has proven to be" is a claim rather than a fact. Peacefully agitating against slavery didn't seem to get anyone very far.

Anyway, my comment wasn't really a straw man (which, incidentally, is quickly catching up to "troll" as perhaps the most overused word on BBTF). The lefties here have no problem with compulsory taxation and redistribution, and they showed us last week that they had little problem with the government's use of guns in Waco. But when I mention that guns might have accelerated the end of some odious human and civil rights violations, the lefties turn into a bunch of pacifists. Very strange.

Voxter calling me "Eichmann" a couple weeks ago

Didn't see it, and I would need to see the full context of the quote in any case. Sounds like it was out of line, although obviously hyperbolic and different than the post in question, but as is generally the case, you (and others who get snark) draw snark with your own words and attitude. Doesn't mean that Voxter was right to say that, and maybe he should have gotten disciplined for it.

Sam is transparent here, as his linking to his own FB page shows, but you might consider the fact that he is not posting under his name anymore, and the fact that some other guys have made that decision recently as well. You have made the opposite choice in that regard, but instead of making every issue about "BTF Liberals" or making this issue about your dislike for me, you might also consider what Sam said about it, the difference in the words and the phrasing, and why Furtado reacted the way he did.

The support of white people was nice but it's mostly irrelevant in this discussion.

No, it was crucial. The federal governmant that used its guns in support of desegregation *was* largely white people.

The oppressed class, and those that wax lyrical about them, their plight and their glorious surmounting of that plight, want to pretend that they did it all by their lonesome, when the truth is that they needed defections from the oppressing class (short of war or force by a nation or outside group on their behalf, something other than their resources), or they would never have obtain that freedom. If the white people in the United States were concertedly and monolithically determined to oppress that oppressed class, it would have stayed oppressed—as long as they were so determined, anyway. Of course, that doesn't satisfy our craving for casting all conflict in good v. evil, white hat/black hat, terms. So ideal, mythic, even romantic, narratives arose.

As to the precise issue at hand wrt non-violent civil disobedience, it had an effect, but it was an effect within a particular context, a context that to a great extent tolerated that disobedience, the disobeyers were not the creators of that context. That context was not sown and nurture, did not come to fruition, in the elemental societies of Africa. Moreover, that civil disobedience had its limits. Indeed, at the time of MLK’s death, he and his method were being criticized by radicals who were tired of waiting and who advocated violence if necessary. King had accomplished a great deal, but, as to his effectiveness, he may have reached the end of the line. Riots and thinly-veiled threats were coming into their own. Tom Wolfe’s Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers was not about MLK-type civil disobedience.