And it starts.... Rachel Maddow Attempts to Portray Rand Paul as a Racist

[ImFeklhr]

The argument that the market would prevent widespread racism is folly. If we allowed overt segregation back into society, it would become more socially palettable and many businesses would fare just fine. Much of the progress we've made over the past 46 years would be lost.

Trench

I disagree in part.

Does government law even prevent widespread racism? No. It merely sets rules in certain arenas. I didn't grow up with a more enlightened view of cultures other than my grandfather simply because of the Civil Rights Law.

And the notion that if the Civil rights law suddenly disappeared that we would suddenly have whites only Burger Kings is off-base.

I think it is misguided to directly attribute social change to changes in laws. It does a disservice to the changing opinions people in America have developed over the decades. It's like saying the only reason you don't murder someone is because there is a law against it. Or more relevantly, the only reason parents stopped beating their children (in comparison to past generations) was because of government laws. Did the law make it tougher to get away with beating up your children? Yes. But so too did changing social beliefs on the issue. We learn and grow as a society. Pretty much since the invention of the printing press the over-arching zeitgeist of western culture has changed each and every generation.

The laws and social conscious of the country often grow in parallel, but I hesitate to give laws the lion share of the credit for social change.

 

[Trench]

I disagree in part.

Does government law even prevent widespread racism? No. It merely sets rules in certain arenas. I didn't grow up with a more enlightened view of cultures other than my grandfather simply because of the Civil Rights Law.

And the notion that if the Civil rights law suddenly disappeared that we would suddenly have whites only Burger Kings is off-base.

I think it is misguided to directly attribute social change to changes in laws. It does a disservice to the changing opinions people in America have developed over the decades. It's like saying the only reason you don't murder someone is because there is a law against it. Or more relevantly, the only reason parents stopped beating their children (in comparison to past generations) was because of government laws. Did the law make it tougher to get away with beating up your children? Yes. But so too did changing social beliefs on the issue. We learn and grow as a society. Pretty much since the invention of the printing press the over-arching zeitgeist of western culture has changed each and every generation.

The laws and social conscious of the country often grow in parallel, but I hesitate to give laws the lion share of the credit for social change.

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point but I respect your opinion. I do agree that by and large changes in social mores have made racism socially unacceptable; however, without legislation like the Civil Rights Act, the pace at which those social mores changed would have been greatly diminished in many areas of this country.

The hearts of men don't always change willingly. Sometimes progress requires social upheaval. You may find it difficult to believe that without the Civil Rights Act, we wouldn't have segregated restaurants and other places of business in this country today but how can you be so sure? Defacto segregation still exists across this country today. Given the opportunity, it's not hard to imagine many places of business segregating in all but the most socially progressive areas of the country, even today.

Good discussion though.

 

[kcwolf]

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point but I respect your opinion. I do agree that by and large changes in social mores have made racism socially unacceptable; however, without legislation like the Civil Rights Act, the pace at which those social mores changed would have been greatly diminished in many areas of this country.

The hearts of men don't always change willingly. Sometimes progress requires social upheaval. You may find it difficult to believe that without the Civil Rights Act, we wouldn't have segregated restaurants and other places of business in this country today but how can you be so sure? Defacto segregation still exists across this country today. Given the opportunity, it's not hard to imagine many places of business segregating in all but the most socially progressive areas of the country, even today.

Good discussion though.

I have to agree with Trench here. Without civil rights laws, we would again fall back to some very ugly timews in the sixties. Utopia does not exist, but is required by the libertarian view on this subject. For the sake of discussion, lets make it a given no racial problems would develop with the no rules private resturant. Those last few words are an oxymoron in itself in my opinion, but where is the line drawn as far as government regulation at this utopian resturant. Will ther be no health inspectors? Will there be no OSHA rules? No employee standards? No equipment safety standards? My resturant has a bar, no drinking age limits?

How far do you take it? We could eliminate taxes while were at it for fire department protection. An extreme example maybe, but I don't find Mr. Paul's belief very logical. He showed stupity and a weakness when questioned about it. Blaming the media was lame, especially since he used that same media to announce his run, which was poined out in a previous thread.

I too appreciate the discussion so far, may it continue.

 

[Lumi]

I appreciate the fact that this thread has made it this far without too much anger and only good discussion.

NICE ! I like it, this thread would survive in General discussion, maybe...

Carry on:toast: