I think a lot of people miss the point of the Jim Crow laws in the first place. They were there to mandate racism because, even in the deep south, even in that time, businesses who discriminated would be at a financial disadvantage to those who did not. That is how all those laws came about, Businessmen who wanted to be racist, but did not want the competition.
i have to agree with stossel here. racism is abhorrent, but it is not illegal. government has no place to tell a private business what legalities he should observe and which ones he shouldn't.
The free market will penalize those who discriminate, personally as a white guy I wouldn't give money to a white only restaurant because I wouldn't want to support a racist, many people wouldn't either, it would kill business. If there was a free market on this issue we wouldn't see a redux of the South pre-1960s because much of the intense racism back then was state sanctioned. The government imposed the Jim Crow laws. They were the biggest cheerleaders of racism next to the KKK.
Milton Friedman has a beautiful way of explaining why free markets are better at ending racism than government intervention. I agree with Stossel and obviously Friedman but I feel the need to add my two cent. Gov intervention, however well intended, is basically trying to force people not to be racist. You can never change someone's opinion by using force. The only way that the gov can help end racism is to make sure everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the law.
Freedom will always prevail. The only reason RACISM held on for so long is because it was government supported. Same as the free market. It will NATURALLY correct all things. If you burn down a forest, you do not have the government as a whole writing regs that say how fast the trees will grow back, where they will grow back and what kind of trees they will be. It's unnatural. I like nataslived999's comment and I think we ought to give freedom a try in this country. It worked,it can work again.
This blonde babe needs to shut her trap, because she herself is a beneficiary of discrimination ! ( Oh wait --- her producers have ordered her to take this "principled" stance against the "evil" of discrimination ! ) John Stossel rightfully alludes to this and rubs it in, by saying that if a business does not want to hire BLONDES that is their right. But the fact is, that brunettes, and especially fat and ugly women and men were discriminated against so that SHE could have her job !
@mooninquirer she's just doing her job, dude. You don't know what her views are. She's playing devil's advocate. She's making sure different side's of the debate are there. It's what a good news show should be - you don't know what she really thinks. She's just making sure the other side is heard and that the other argument is put to everyone. If you listen closely you can even infer she might agree with Stossel.
@Norcha8 Yes ---- I make that point in my comment: "Oh wait ---- her producers have ordered her to take this principled stance against the evils of discrimination." And you have added that she DOES sound like she might agree with Stossel. But we don't NEED debate, because the position she takes has been the NATIONAL RELIGION of this country, the dogma that no one dare challenge. We have NEVER heard the voice of sanity, for our freedom, that Stossel is giving.
@mooninquirer Yes, she looks like she agrees with Stossel, because she knows very well she herself is a beneficiary of discrimination, and needs this right for her own protection. A beautiful woman would be more likely to be in favor of freedom of assembly or association ( i.e., the right of individuals to discriminate ), in the same way that any property or business owner very strongly supports this right. She would want and need this right, to refuse to have sex with just any man.
@mooninquirer The Civil Rights Act of 1964 can very, VERY easily be extended to force people to have sex with people they do not want to. In fact, this has actually been proposed, as part of hate crimes bills, making dating sites that specify " men seeking women" ILLEGAL. Fortunately, this proposal did not pass. Such a law has ZERO qualitative difference to the CRA 1964, which Rand Paul was very right to say was unconstitutional. Now, any immigration law IS qualitatively different.
Furthermore, business owners very, VERY strongly opposed the Jim Crow laws from day one, and lobbied against them. They incurred HUGE costs by building separate facilities, AND lost a lot of revenue, because Blacks and Whites had to be separated. What would be better for profit is to allow the whole place to fill up. But that almost never happened. If the Black section filled up, other Blacks had to be turned away, and it was a criminal offense to defy these laws. ( Jim Crow laws ).
im asian, i rather visit a shop that I know welcomes me than rather one that is forced to accept me by the government. If someone doesn't want my business, I don't want to give them my business. if the law wasn't there, then i wouldn't have to give me my money to racists.
@Timb0NZ That's great, but you do not speak for all people of colour. It is even likely that Asians would be more accepted than other races. This is a can of worms you people want to open. Absolute libertarianism is not practical. Now that the roads are built and government structures are ready for use; you want to abandon the government completely?
@EarlRegent That will be "anarchy" not "libertarianism". Btw, the government didn't make the roads, search "The State Is Not Great" vid. Roads existed before the government. but it was a dirt road. people would build shops and businesses and homes along this road, then it came a town, then a city etc, but a dirt road. the government then collects taxes and improves the roads by paying private construction companies. People think this is the best and most efficient way, but think about...
@Timb0NZ shopping malls, the land is developed from scratch by private developers, the internal roads, car parks, and the buildings, all done without the government. Same for private gated communities. It can be done privately, and I wager it is more efficient.
@Timb0NZ You are missing the point. When half the establishments of any given country refuse you service, you will be singing a different tune. Jesus! Have we all forgotten history here?
@EarlRegent If the point is "convenience" then sure, I get the point. But I'm not talking about convenience, I'm talking about rights and principle... which should trump convenience. A business is a private property. The owner has the right to exclude Asians and blacks if he chooses. If one bakery in town is racist, then I'll just go to the competing bakery. "half". History wasn't all that racist. There was racist minorities like the kkk etc, and racist government policies.
@Timb0NZ History wasn't all that racist? Are you out of your mind? Have you taken leave of your senses? Wow! It must be very comfortable to be alive today, when all the shit was challenged by other people to aid your future. "history wasn't all that racist'! What a stupendous/asinine comment. arghhhhh!!!!!!!
@EarlRegent All that racist refers to your "half" figure. I'm not saying there weren't racist people.... Back to original subject... why force people to be closet racists? The might spit in your food!
@Timb0NZ I am a libertarian. I guess you are right mate, but(being a mixed race person myself) I am a little apprehensive about life after an almost complete government withdrawal from public life. I guess you could call me 85% Libertarian. I also wonder how military defence would function ;at the whims of the public? That sounds even scarier than me not being able to go to loads of clubs on the weekends due to my complexion.
@EarlRegent Thanks dude, you already won if you can consider yourself a libertarian. One role, I think most libertarians believe, is that it is the government's role to run the military. Even then, I don't think Government doing the military is the best or only way. Don't worry about clubs dude.... you don't want to play sports with people that don't want to play with you. Just start your own sports team if all else fails.... Remember, we discriminate as well, we can choose our friends...
Ive only recently heard of Stossel after he trashed my mortal enemy Michael Moore. Ive looked him up and he is also pro Ron/Rand Paul...I am really starting to love this guy. I wish we had Liberterian politics in the UK. We are all a bunch of socialists over here. Even our Conservative party.
@sy2pie Yes would it not be fantastic if restaurants over hear in Britain could throw people of colour out for being people of colour? That would be fantastic! In fact, would it not be great to allow private Health insurrers(once your libertarian dream of getting rid of the NHS goes through of course)could deny access to coloured people too? The thought of it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. You heartless short sited wanker!
@EarlRegent Well its down to the individual. If a resturant owner doesnt want someone on his property then thats his right. I dont agree with throwing people of out of resturants for their race, nor is it good business sense but its his right to do so. The very idea that the government can tell two christians to allow a gay couple to stay in their hotel has nothing to do with the state. Its not nice i know but thats freedom. Freedom isnt a perfect world...its freedom
@sy2pie Very well; you and I both know that if some of these laws are lifted that there would be widespread discrimination in private retail. The businesses involved would also draw in customers that support the idea. There would not be a great loss of business like you imagine. Can you think of the consequences that would have in regards to international opinion? Again, Europe will lead in such things-no good can come of this particular aspect of libertarianism. There are limits you know.
If you don't believe what Stossel is saying just remember Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts. Eventually businesses will have to not discriminate, or will go out of business to others who don't discriminate. If there is a demand, somebody will step in and supply.
@nataslived999 "Eventually businesses will have to not discriminate"
Yeah you can say that now that our country is starting to accept blacks, and gays. There's plenty of other minority groups and opinions not acceptable in society still. I don't think libertarians are being all that consistent about liberty because you aren't thinking about the liberty of the victim. The business person doesn't get effected worth shit so long as the minority person isn't going against the business vision.
@robbiepitcher Correct --- it was a criminal offense if buses did not discriminate. In the Rosa Parks case, a police officer was called. Same for Plessy, the one-eighth "Negro," of the Plessy vs Ferguson case.
@nataslived999 It is actually more extreme, because it was a CRIMINAL OFFENSE not to discriminate against Blacks !
Business did NOT want the Jim Crow laws to be passed, because they lost money in creating separate facilities, and in being forced to turn away customers.
@nataslived999 but what about in certain rural areas in the South... small towns in Missouri, Georgia, Alabama etc. that are dominated by small local businesses. Some of these parts of the country are still loaded with racists.
I guess people could just move somewhere else and vote with their feet, but for some people that's tough to do financially and due to family obligations etc.
@IcyScythe The BUSINESSES would not want to discriminate, UNLESS all of the townspeople would boycott them. Businesses lose a lot of money by doing so. They especially do not not want more regulations, and people to have a chip on their shoulder to the effect that "you CANNOT fire me." A business owner wants to be able to fire a person for any reason, especially disloyalty. They hate the civil rights acts more than TAXES, and that is saying a lot. Indeed, they are a form of communism.
That part comparing discrimination to murder was just absurd. She said being racist is as bad as committing murder, and then went on to say that it's fine to personally be racist, so doesn't that mean she supports having the right to murder?
ThinkProgress is a twisted backwards and negative fraudulent person. The classic liberal mindset, where they wish they dwell in a broken down land full of racism and hatred, where religious religious right-wing nuts run wild, where they can openly discriminate against anybody who thinks differently. Unfortunately, when hit with facts, these idiots crumble.
Rand Paul is correct. The other side of the coin is the government is full of whores and exploitation. We constantly hear about the "Latino, Black, minority votes". Lobbyist pay to have a politician to regulate to their whim and thats just not American or free trade.
Business's that are racist fail in 2 ways. One, no one will shop there. Two, if it refuses to higher members of a difference race it will lose out on those talents and productivity. Both naturally and productively weed out racism in business without government oppression and regulation on a mans right to his property. There is little else more sacred in this world than a man's right to own himself. Infringe on that right and you compromise on the principles that made us great.
Why is this a debate? If I own it and don't want u there its my right. Please big brother get off our backs and try to do something constructive like not allowing Obama to sell our country to the Chinese Government. A business not serving everyone American wont last...simple and stupid on their part, but it is their right to discriminate, just as it is Wal-Mart's right to say I can't bring in my gun...business is just lost that way, its our right...even if acting on it is stupid.
@yarnpower Discrimination is anyone telling you, no, because of a flaw about you. My concern for public safety says that in TX they openly carry and conceal firearms and have the lowest crime rate...hmmm public safety concern, I dnt think so, democratic liberal agenda, is more like it. I also know what the laws say about equal rights, and mine is to voice my opinion just as you are, isn't freedom great. Your views on discrimination are lacking, it is a much vaguer subject than u make it seem.
@RaistMajeres , I don't where you read that Texas has the lowest crime rate because that isn 't true, they are about in the middle range of all U.S. states. The New England states followed by the wealthier states of California and Wisconsin, have the lowest violent and property crime rates. The poorer Southern states have the highest crime rates. The crime rates seem to be about poverty, as the more poverty in a state, the higher rate of crime.
@Goodatconnect4 thats clearly diff. if a blak restaurant owner in harlem refused to serve a white customer in jeans, thats wrong and illegal. y must it be a ku klux klan thing? stossel like many whites are so delusional +naive about this country's past. gets big govt did jim crow but cant grasp it also did so with homestead laws, first mortgage loans, social security +of course slavery. all this was white privilege and affirmative action. its all evil now that whities dont have a monopoly!
It's not different at all. Discrimination is discrimination. I don't see Stossel as delusional. You're right; all of those misfortunes were the result of government intervention.
@Goodatconnect4 its delusional for although i'm a rand and very much a stossel supporter overall, he like her ignores that the great majority are instinctively emotional and always will be. its never pragmatic to assume as people have more freedom and a voice that they will not push their self-interest +want guarantees. if i go in a restaurant with my son, +i'm told to get out nigger or we dont serve ur kind, there should be a LEGAL price to pay. reality trumps any libertarian theory!
This has to do with private property. Can you imagine what would happen to the restauranteur who would say that to you and your son in this day and age? People will start protesting and stop eating there. It'll make the newspaper and probably the local news. Competition takes place: The restauranteur in question loses a large part of the market and eventually goes out of business while his competitors profit. Not to mention, that would have been a product of government imposed segregation laws.
@Goodatconnect4 pt2. reminds me of the drug laws.. hey throw away the key for blaks. the minute whites start getting busted, oh no.. we must change these unfair laws. if john stossel or you were subject to the reality of race as i and most blaks routinely endure esp i the south, no way you would stick to ur theory convenience. if i woke up blonde and white tomorrow, i may agree with ur theory. easy to be tough on shit you will likely never SUFFER!
I don't know what you've gone through and I'm not going to pretend to know what it's like to suffer from racism. Having said that, I do not factor in race when I'm developing my beliefs unless the problem in question inherently involves race; I, like Stossel, detest collectivism. Many of the negative consequences of drugs today are the result of the war on drugs. eg. Crystal meth and Crack cocaine were developed as a cheaper & stronger alternative to other drugs as well as more potent marijuana.
@Goodatconnect4 well, guess our issue is that i fundamentally believe that politically +civically one must view people collectively on social issues. economically, should be based on individualism, likewise with how i pick relationships PERSONALLY. politics =people, not individuals. identity group affiliation must dominate pragmatically. theory again clashes with reality here!
From the stance of the bureaucrat/politician, yes, it's impossible to not see people as groups (one reason why government is inefficient). But from the point of the actors, both social & economic affairs are entirely and necessarily individualistic- evinced by your relationship example. Groups can always be suppressed by law (for instance, as were blacks in Jim Crow South). If interested, I'd recommend The Clash of Group Interests by Ludwig von Mises (available on Mises*org for free).
@Goodatconnect4 thanks i just got that website. i am very familiar with mr. von mises. in reality, there is no pure individualism. we all get conceived in collectivism. choice we have after consciousness at around age 7 is whether we will continue in mob-collectivism or go within and trust self-collectivism! only in deep abstracts are we even close to individualism.
I don't know what you mean when you say that "there is no pure individualism." Mises hasn't made the argument that collectivism doesn't exist (if I'm inferring your comments accurately). It's absolutely false to say that individualism doesn't exist (eg. I am hungry; I make a sandwich; I eat the sandwich. No collectivism, just individual action.) Self-collectivism seems to be, on it's face, an oxymoron. And I don't understand what you claim happens at age 7.
@Goodatconnect4 sorry. should have been clearer. meant POLITICALLY +SOCIETALLY OR SOCIALLY. between 5-7 is when we come into conscious memory. do u know in clarity what happened when you were age 3? point is from the womb to your parents out of the womb, possible older sibling,neighbors, extended family, community, region, state + son.. we are never really allowed to live solitarily in peace, always the collective
I remember watching a Navy/Army football game when I was 4 y/o when it was POURING out. I get it now! You're alternating definitions- the term "collectivism" has many implications. When collectivity is used politically, it's basically used as an umbrella for many different forms of socialism. You mean it now as a habit of individuals to form meaningful relationships with others. That action is not only individualistic, but discriminatory. Individualism does not necessarily argue for isolation.
@Goodatconnect4 pt2. there is a reason politicians incl ron paul +even ayn rand when talking politics always said the american people or we say my family.. those are COLLECTIVE or STATIST terms. in politics, u must deal with expediency +pragmatics. if ur ron paul with a majority + say u have a majority that all support a flat tax or a social issue. you have to make it LAW, regulation with strong enforcement force for u cant trust the next guy. that makes you STATIST +collective by default.
"pt2." is equivalent to my prior statement "From the stance of the bureaucrat/politician, yes, it's impossible to not see people as groups (one reason why government is inefficient)." And, I may add, is why the free market trumps govt action. That the government necessarily uses force & coercion and is unresponsive to signals at anything approaching comparison to the free market isn't a surprise to me; it's a truism. Ron Paul and Ayn Rand want as little force (government) as possible.
@Goodatconnect4 in real world, all of political +societal/social life is about COLLECTIVISM. about whether its self-collectivism (where we come to it with our own ideas +dynamics as precedence) or mob-collectivism. (where we come to it with others as precedence). yep the free market would solve racism, thats where a stossel is naive. in many places, even now, a biz could make more $ by discriminating against muslims, blaks+latinos. then u have to ask ur workers these discriminating ques +so on
Self collectivism is an oxymoron and mob collectivism is redundant. As I said before, yes, there are many meanings for collectivism and you keep shifting your definition of it in your speech. That I refer to a group of students (collectivity) is hardly equivalent to my advertising a state controlled system of production (collectivism). The free market wouldn't "solve" racism, but it would certainly produce far better results than the state is capable of doing (for instance, affirmative action).
I like Megyn Kelly but Stossel is right on target. Let firms do whatever they want to do. This is American in the 21st century not 1960. If any firm were to discriminate the free market clean any business's clock and drive them out for being racist/sexist/anti semitic. Stossel has some balls to admit that on America Live, but he's right, we ALL harmlessly discriminate if its a gas station or grocery store.
If privet business were to discriminate, it would lead to more than just a simple boycott. It would fuel violent actions and reprisals. The government would be involved either way; imagine state police protecting a white supremacist supermarket bc they had received a large amount of death threats. How much would that cost, my fellow libertarians?
The Ames, Iowa Straw poll is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011. Because of this, it is imperative to catapult Ron Paul to victory in the straw poll. On July 19, 2011, we will hold an online money bomb in support of Ron Paul for President 2012, with the goal to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll.
Please invite all your friends and help Ron Paul end our costly military involvements overseas, shrink the size of our government and restore the republic
That aside, I agree with Stossel. Whatever happened to a choice to do what you want, especially regarding your own body, private property, etc...? (No, this excludes abortion, which is murder, not a right)
@yarnpower You think any business would survive now if it discriminates against people. Whats the difference between having a membership and having anyone being able to go in. So you can have a pharmacy that only members can use but to become a member you have to be white. But there can't be a pharmacy that has no membership but only white peoples prescriptions will be filled. What exactly is the difference?
@whothaplaya, the big difference is that belonging to a member-ship only business that discriminates would announce quite loudly that you are a racist. That's why there aren't many, people usually want their racism to be kept quiet. Like people talking loudly about favoring racism on the internet wouldn't dare bring up the subject in public.
In the old days when businesses were allowed to discriminate, white customers could use the excuse that it was convenient but they weren't really racist.
@whothaplaya , it makes a difference because having a pharmacy, doctor's office, health clinic etc. discriminate can cost someone their life, as time is of the essence in a health emergency.
@yarnpower How long do you think a business that is racist would last? No one will die because a business. Do you know how many pharmacies, doctors offices and clinics are around me and most people.
@whothaplaya in mississippi, if ur blak and at night, y should you risk being harassed or discriminated against? in certain places, business could go up if ur racist or discriminated against. only a privileged ivory tower white guy like stossel would ever think of making such a dumb statement like that.
@reg12269 People are going to be discriminated against no matter what. If a business is racist DON'T GO THERE. Simple as that. You have a right to decide who goes into your house you have a right to decide who goes into your business. There are all black colleges I don't care if the discriminate because they are a private institution and can decide who goes to there school.
@whothaplaya , just because there are plenty of doctors and pharmacies, etc. around you doesn't take into account that there are many places in the U.S. where such businesses are few and far between. Obviously you haven't traveled that much.
Having worked in the medical field, I know that minutes matter. Any delay in getting medical attention can mean further injury or even death.
@yarnpower No one is going to because a certain doctors office or pharmacy is racist. Again you fail to answer my question. How long do you think a business that discriminates? Most hospitals and ambulances receive some government funding therefore no one is going to die because of a business that discriminates. I do agree minutes matter, but not when it comes to getting a check up or prescription filled. Anything life threatening is dealt with by ambulances and hospitals.
@whothaplaya , I guess you've never worked in the health field because there are plenty of circumstances where waiting an hour or two for medicine can kill you. As to your own assertion that most ambulance services receive government funding, that isn't true, most are privately owned.
We know from history what a mess things were when discrimination was legal. The vast majority of Americans don't want to backward to that ugly period of our history.
@whothaplaya I agree, but back then, businesses were allowed to be discriminate and courts and law enforcement would never side with minorites. Read "Black Like Me" or ask any black man who grew up at that time. They needed those laws. Now, I think, that law can be eliminated, but any politican that agrees with you and me will not be popular (I'm guessing). Like Rand Paul stated: he liked the overcome of the laws that were passed.
@ridaderek His argument fails because he confuses civil right discrimination vs. discriminating special interest and non profit groups where a certain characteristic is relavent to the group or vision of the group.
If you want to make a Christian cafe where it's about preaching and having fun with Christians I'm not going to complain about it, but it's ridiculous to just sweep under the rug these major distinctions and say we already allow discrimination.
@chromacopy365 The NFL discriminates women the Nation of Islam discriminates Caucasians.But Barry Goldwater and Milton Friedman were not advocating racism but it was the state government that restricted integration in private enterprise and public locations. The reason why it taken 96 years for afro-americans to vote in the is because of the hateful majority that only made Caucasians eligible to vote.
When XYZ lunch counter doesn't want to let blacks eat at their restaurant, who do they call to enforce their property right? Police. AGENTS OF THE STATE.
The government defines property rights. It also enforces them, it is inherently backing every transaction via force.
The state has an interest in civil peace, and civil rights. Therefore, stripping private property owners of the ability to discriminate in public places and marketplaces is absolutely the correct decision.
It is a very interesting argument. I see both sides. If you left it up to the store owner in 1964 then I don't think they would let blacks in. But I agree that today they would end up going bankrupt. A liberterian gets caught up in trying to keep gov't out of everything but that is not always possible. In this case they should have left it alone. I also think Affirmative Action is raciest. Mandating hiring is too. We've come a long way but still have more to go.
Before she hosted this show she used to go on Bill O'Reilly's show and correct all his bullshit statements about the law. Most of those segments are great.
I agree with a lot of a libertarian ideas, but this is one I feel is a little too optimistic about society. People are naturally racist if only slightly.. There are degrees to where the civil rights act go too far in mandating regulations upon who can be hired, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some level of protection against racism.
@MRKetter81 Is working at a bigots company an inalienable right? Obviously its not. Employers have the right to choose who they employ just like you have the right to choose who you let into your house. Private property IS private property. If you know your employer is a bigot ahead of time, it is far better than passing laws that make him/her hide their ibigotry all the while spitting in your lunch while your not looking, Look elsewhere for a far more ethical employer, is a better option.
@MRKetter81 the idea is this. If i discriminate against a black man and he is more qualified than the white man i hire over him then my business will suffer. Business's who discriminate often do far worse and often go bankrupt than those who give the job to who deserves it most, regardless of race. Also if any business practices racism then im sure the public will refuse to shop there. If they continue to shop there then it is not the fault of the employer it is that of the people.
@adulby "Also if any business practices racism then im sure the public will refuse to shop there. If they continue to shop there then it is not the fault of the employer it is that of the people."
And that's my problem with it... People can and often do exactly that. The housing market is a prime example. Housing prices can go up or drop based on ethnicity of the other people in the area. Your being too optimistic about human nature if you think that won't run in to problems.
@MRKetter81 your right, i am too optimistic about human behavior. I dont think racism is practiced to the degree that any store owner, today, could survive if they displayed their discrimination. A store is private property and in the end. I think that whoever owns it can let whoever they want it in. Whether black, white, yellow, brown, or green. Who are we to force someone to let a certain type of people into their own property. Thats my view i guess. I can understand your arguement.
@adulby If there is anything I would consider it would be a reform of the civil rights acts I suppose. Yet I would still urge caution as these things tend to have unexpected long term consequences that no one sees at first. Remember how in the short term Socialism does work... only as these socialist countries grow do they realize the problems they created for them selves.
American Conservatism has gone disastrously in recent years. It served somewhat of a purpose during the cold war, but it's been bastardized into something that only benefits the top 5-10% now, particularly in America. The Rich, DO NOT give back to society like they once did. Look at the mess of under regulation in the American banking sector - total disaster.
The world is sliding to the left, look at the middle-East. It's sad The American moral majority holds the country back.
Stossel isn't an attorey, so he doesn't know what he's talking about when comparing private businesses with private property in general, since private commercial property and conduct is not the same thing as private conduct otherwise.
In other words he is overly-simplistic and he comes off sounding like a complete moron on this issue.
Businesses CANNOT discriminate because that's a violation of general commerce-laws, i.e. the good-faith social contract to conduct trade in society with all.
Just because you can't see how he's wrong, doesn't make him right.
Stossel is blatanty over-simplifying matters of law that have developed over hundreds of years, and which protect us all-- laws that, as Thomas More said, he would respect if the devil himself were on trial; for otherwise, if you cut down all laws and the devil turned round on you, where would YOU hide, with all laws being cut down?
And then Henry VIII DID cut down all laws, leading to the reign of Bloody Mary.
You simplistic-libertarian-wannabe's just barge into the legal system like a bull in a china-shop, ignoring principles which have developed in law over hundreds of years like theft-bote, omission-duty, invitor-invitee-status etc.with your utopian wishful-thinking about how YOUR little world would be perfect if you cut down all the laws, claiming the devil would never turn round on you, based on expedient pragmatism over principle.
Gotta love Stossel's defense of the "Free market" he believes in the infallibility of the market, like some religious nut believes in a magic sky daddy. But what do I know RON PAUL 2012 lmao
If it were up to the GOP and John Stossel today, they would repeal the 14th and 13th amendments so that they could bring back slavery. Because as you all are aware, conservatives think that only the original constitution is valid and think that other than the 2nd and 10th amendments there shouldn't be anything else.
@whatukno1975 You have no clue about American history. Southern DEMOCRATS created the KKK as a reactionary measure against the republicans -who were appealing black freedom in the north. Abraham Lincoln was a republican and helped start the process to free slaves. Martin Luther King was a REPUBLICAN LIBERTARIAN like Stossel and spoke used the constitution to promote the right to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness to all black americans.
@SuperFifthwheel The GOP and the Democrats today are polar opposites of what they were back then. Today the GOP is very exclusionary, very totalitarian, very evil. They claim that they want smaller government. But want to legislate morality, and sexuality.
Also remember that the GOP of today condones torture of POWs, and one Conservative state actually wants the death penalty for abortion.
The right is so anti freedom anymore it's amazing that anyone votes for them.
@whatukno1975 Stossel is a libertarian. Libertarians do not align with republicans, they only caucass with republican partys due to the anarchist points of veiw they have. Can you prove they are polar opposites from back then? Only in your opinion and dreams.
@whatukno1975 Fundamentalist muslims believe that killing people is moral and ethical and impose that on their populations. Should they have a right to legalize killing people in the U.S. based on your "imposing morality" theory? No, republicans do not want the death penalty for abortions, where did you hear that line of crap from? Waterboarding is torture if you are a panzy. Radical muslims cut your head of slowly with a knife while you choke to death on your own blood, that's torture
@SuperFifthwheel In Georgia: Look it up, State Rep. Bobby Franklin wants to make abortion a felony punishable by death.
So Christian Fundamentalists believe that killing people is moral and ethical too. I'm not Muslim nor Christian so neither cult bothers me. Just don't shove your beliefs down my throat.
Hey why don't you go through water-boarding before you say that it's not torture. Hell, ask Jessie Ventura an ex navy seal what his take on it is.
@postalmeter On January 22 2009 Obama signed an executive order ending waterboarding, stop believing everything that FOX News tells you, they lie.
It's right there on the white house website, for you to view.
He ended the torture program his second day in office. So yes, it's just a right wing problem, right wingers are fascists and think that it's ok to torture POWs under our control.
@postalmeter Odd, according to the federal archives, he never signed one on February 13 of any year he has been in office. So, I think you are full of shit and are a liar and thus a FOX News drone.
@SuperFifthwheel Hell, Al Qaeda and Conservatives have so much in common y'all might as well be on the same side. The only difference between a conservative and a terrorist is the book they fail at reading.
@whatukno1975 I'm not a conservative. Im a anti-federalist consequential libertarian. Know the difference. Conservative ideology wants to keep things the same, libertarians want to get government out of peoples lives -i.e. keep government from spying on its citizens, keep the gov from arresting and detaining american citizens without charges, keep the government from managing economics, and keep government out of wars. Anyone who can't see the government is the problem is a moron.
@SuperFifthwheel I think that's a relatively simplified version of conservatism, but then again libertarianism is another political philosophy, what would you know you care more about gaining followers than truth. If you want a complete lack of government, and you really think genuine libertarianism wouldn't implode into chaos, than I suggest a flight to Somalia or anarchist Russia of the late 19th century.
@viletree I think that you need to look up consequential libertarianism before you call it anarchy, libertarianism is not anarchy at all, its places heavy constraints on government authority. We believe in states rights and anti-federal gov powers. Its an ideology that says you can do whatever you want (drugs, suicide, and the like) just as long as you dont harm or steal from others prosperity, nor use the government as a tool to steal from others.
I think YOU need to look up "invitee/licensee status" before saying that businesses can discriminate against anyone they please. A social contract must be universal, otherwise we can't be equal under it.
@postalmeter Thanks for your opinion. Your opinion means so much to me. I mean, your opinion is just so right, it should be taken as fact. Your opinion should be in history books as the most noteable opinion of all time. I mean, a social contract, whoda thunk it? Wheres our pens and where do we sign this social contract? You are sooooo intelligent, with your opinion. The only people that make everyone equal is the government and laws and not society. LAWL@EGALITARIANS
This has been flagged as spam show
Hysteria.
UncleFourFinger 5 days ago
I think a lot of people miss the point of the Jim Crow laws in the first place. They were there to mandate racism because, even in the deep south, even in that time, businesses who discriminated would be at a financial disadvantage to those who did not. That is how all those laws came about, Businessmen who wanted to be racist, but did not want the competition.
knearhood8 1 week ago
this is the bullshit you hear when she doesn't have a dick in her mouth.
UltraProle21 4 weeks ago
A great example of an intelligent person, debating against a stuck up doll.
thelister4910 4 weeks ago
Stossel is a twit.
crownborn 1 month ago
@crownborn like all masturbatory government hacks, your argument against stossel is just breathtaking.
Averyofthemain 1 week ago
i have to agree with stossel here. racism is abhorrent, but it is not illegal. government has no place to tell a private business what legalities he should observe and which ones he shouldn't.
chadimus84 1 month ago
john stossel for secretary of state!!!!!
JeriDro 2 months ago
the women is an idiot
Bobby61189 2 months ago
@Bobby61189 playing devils advocate? there are people who sincerely asks these questions and its good Stossel's answering
rheniumlake 1 month ago
The free market will penalize those who discriminate, personally as a white guy I wouldn't give money to a white only restaurant because I wouldn't want to support a racist, many people wouldn't either, it would kill business. If there was a free market on this issue we wouldn't see a redux of the South pre-1960s because much of the intense racism back then was state sanctioned. The government imposed the Jim Crow laws. They were the biggest cheerleaders of racism next to the KKK.
grasd2 2 months ago 2
"racism and discrimination is awful too" 2 things being awful doesn't mean they are the same.
daPlumber702 3 months ago
Milton Friedman has a beautiful way of explaining why free markets are better at ending racism than government intervention. I agree with Stossel and obviously Friedman but I feel the need to add my two cent. Gov intervention, however well intended, is basically trying to force people not to be racist. You can never change someone's opinion by using force. The only way that the gov can help end racism is to make sure everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the law.
ca1cifer 3 months ago
Freedom will always prevail. The only reason RACISM held on for so long is because it was government supported. Same as the free market. It will NATURALLY correct all things. If you burn down a forest, you do not have the government as a whole writing regs that say how fast the trees will grow back, where they will grow back and what kind of trees they will be. It's unnatural. I like nataslived999's comment and I think we ought to give freedom a try in this country. It worked,it can work again.
khanmar 3 months ago 2
He sounds exactly like his father
cj62392 3 months ago
This blonde babe needs to shut her trap, because she herself is a beneficiary of discrimination ! ( Oh wait --- her producers have ordered her to take this "principled" stance against the "evil" of discrimination ! ) John Stossel rightfully alludes to this and rubs it in, by saying that if a business does not want to hire BLONDES that is their right. But the fact is, that brunettes, and especially fat and ugly women and men were discriminated against so that SHE could have her job !
mooninquirer 4 months ago 18
@mooninquirer Oh, bravo!
RBNightlinger 3 months ago
@mooninquirer she's just doing her job, dude. You don't know what her views are. She's playing devil's advocate. She's making sure different side's of the debate are there. It's what a good news show should be - you don't know what she really thinks. She's just making sure the other side is heard and that the other argument is put to everyone. If you listen closely you can even infer she might agree with Stossel.
Norcha8 3 months ago
@Norcha8 Yes ---- I make that point in my comment: "Oh wait ---- her producers have ordered her to take this principled stance against the evils of discrimination." And you have added that she DOES sound like she might agree with Stossel. But we don't NEED debate, because the position she takes has been the NATIONAL RELIGION of this country, the dogma that no one dare challenge. We have NEVER heard the voice of sanity, for our freedom, that Stossel is giving.
mooninquirer 3 months ago
@mooninquirer Yes, she looks like she agrees with Stossel, because she knows very well she herself is a beneficiary of discrimination, and needs this right for her own protection. A beautiful woman would be more likely to be in favor of freedom of assembly or association ( i.e., the right of individuals to discriminate ), in the same way that any property or business owner very strongly supports this right. She would want and need this right, to refuse to have sex with just any man.
mooninquirer 3 months ago
@mooninquirer The Civil Rights Act of 1964 can very, VERY easily be extended to force people to have sex with people they do not want to. In fact, this has actually been proposed, as part of hate crimes bills, making dating sites that specify " men seeking women" ILLEGAL. Fortunately, this proposal did not pass. Such a law has ZERO qualitative difference to the CRA 1964, which Rand Paul was very right to say was unconstitutional. Now, any immigration law IS qualitatively different.
mooninquirer 3 months ago
@mooninquirer ya I dunno why brunettes > blondes. I guess it appeals to the Fox demographic :P
IcyScythe 3 months ago
@mooninquirer i dont want her to shut her trap i want to fill her trap if you know what i mean wink wink
MIT2004 3 months ago
Furthermore, business owners very, VERY strongly opposed the Jim Crow laws from day one, and lobbied against them. They incurred HUGE costs by building separate facilities, AND lost a lot of revenue, because Blacks and Whites had to be separated. What would be better for profit is to allow the whole place to fill up. But that almost never happened. If the Black section filled up, other Blacks had to be turned away, and it was a criminal offense to defy these laws. ( Jim Crow laws ).
mooninquirer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stossel is a F!!!!!G lying shill,shit bag.
Roph58 4 months ago
John Streusel found his home at Fox Noise for sure.
Tsnore 4 months ago
im asian, i rather visit a shop that I know welcomes me than rather one that is forced to accept me by the government. If someone doesn't want my business, I don't want to give them my business. if the law wasn't there, then i wouldn't have to give me my money to racists.
Timb0NZ 4 months ago
@Timb0NZ That's great, but you do not speak for all people of colour. It is even likely that Asians would be more accepted than other races. This is a can of worms you people want to open. Absolute libertarianism is not practical. Now that the roads are built and government structures are ready for use; you want to abandon the government completely?
EarlRegent 4 months ago
@EarlRegent That will be "anarchy" not "libertarianism". Btw, the government didn't make the roads, search "The State Is Not Great" vid. Roads existed before the government. but it was a dirt road. people would build shops and businesses and homes along this road, then it came a town, then a city etc, but a dirt road. the government then collects taxes and improves the roads by paying private construction companies. People think this is the best and most efficient way, but think about...
Timb0NZ 4 months ago
@Timb0NZ shopping malls, the land is developed from scratch by private developers, the internal roads, car parks, and the buildings, all done without the government. Same for private gated communities. It can be done privately, and I wager it is more efficient.
Timb0NZ 4 months ago
@EarlRegent cool quote I heard from stossel... "Government is the dude that jumps infront of a parade and pretends he's leading it!"
Timb0NZ 4 months ago
@Timb0NZ You are missing the point. When half the establishments of any given country refuse you service, you will be singing a different tune. Jesus! Have we all forgotten history here?
EarlRegent 4 months ago
@EarlRegent If the point is "convenience" then sure, I get the point. But I'm not talking about convenience, I'm talking about rights and principle... which should trump convenience. A business is a private property. The owner has the right to exclude Asians and blacks if he chooses. If one bakery in town is racist, then I'll just go to the competing bakery. "half". History wasn't all that racist. There was racist minorities like the kkk etc, and racist government policies.
Timb0NZ 4 months ago
@Timb0NZ History wasn't all that racist? Are you out of your mind? Have you taken leave of your senses? Wow! It must be very comfortable to be alive today, when all the shit was challenged by other people to aid your future. "history wasn't all that racist'! What a stupendous/asinine comment. arghhhhh!!!!!!!
EarlRegent 4 months ago
@EarlRegent All that racist refers to your "half" figure. I'm not saying there weren't racist people.... Back to original subject... why force people to be closet racists? The might spit in your food!
Timb0NZ 4 months ago
@Timb0NZ I am a libertarian. I guess you are right mate, but(being a mixed race person myself) I am a little apprehensive about life after an almost complete government withdrawal from public life. I guess you could call me 85% Libertarian. I also wonder how military defence would function ;at the whims of the public? That sounds even scarier than me not being able to go to loads of clubs on the weekends due to my complexion.
EarlRegent 4 months ago
@EarlRegent Thanks dude, you already won if you can consider yourself a libertarian. One role, I think most libertarians believe, is that it is the government's role to run the military. Even then, I don't think Government doing the military is the best or only way. Don't worry about clubs dude.... you don't want to play sports with people that don't want to play with you. Just start your own sports team if all else fails.... Remember, we discriminate as well, we can choose our friends...
Timb0NZ 4 months ago
Also I love how this is a think progress video and everyone agrees with Stossel hahahaha.
fishblades 5 months ago
Ive only recently heard of Stossel after he trashed my mortal enemy Michael Moore. Ive looked him up and he is also pro Ron/Rand Paul...I am really starting to love this guy. I wish we had Liberterian politics in the UK. We are all a bunch of socialists over here. Even our Conservative party.
sy2pie 5 months ago 2
@sy2pie
Have you ever heard of the Young Britons? Are they liberal as well? I've only heard good things.
fishblades 5 months ago
@sy2pie Yes would it not be fantastic if restaurants over hear in Britain could throw people of colour out for being people of colour? That would be fantastic! In fact, would it not be great to allow private Health insurrers(once your libertarian dream of getting rid of the NHS goes through of course)could deny access to coloured people too? The thought of it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. You heartless short sited wanker!
EarlRegent 4 months ago
@EarlRegent Well its down to the individual. If a resturant owner doesnt want someone on his property then thats his right. I dont agree with throwing people of out of resturants for their race, nor is it good business sense but its his right to do so. The very idea that the government can tell two christians to allow a gay couple to stay in their hotel has nothing to do with the state. Its not nice i know but thats freedom. Freedom isnt a perfect world...its freedom
sy2pie 4 months ago
@sy2pie Very well; you and I both know that if some of these laws are lifted that there would be widespread discrimination in private retail. The businesses involved would also draw in customers that support the idea. There would not be a great loss of business like you imagine. Can you think of the consequences that would have in regards to international opinion? Again, Europe will lead in such things-no good can come of this particular aspect of libertarianism. There are limits you know.
EarlRegent 4 months ago
If you don't believe what Stossel is saying just remember Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts. Eventually businesses will have to not discriminate, or will go out of business to others who don't discriminate. If there is a demand, somebody will step in and supply.
nataslived999 5 months ago 29
@nataslived999 "Eventually businesses will have to not discriminate"
Yeah you can say that now that our country is starting to accept blacks, and gays. There's plenty of other minority groups and opinions not acceptable in society still. I don't think libertarians are being all that consistent about liberty because you aren't thinking about the liberty of the victim. The business person doesn't get effected worth shit so long as the minority person isn't going against the business vision.
RuinSonic 4 months ago
@nataslived999 There was also a legal requirement that buses be segregated, that was not an activity created by the choices of free individuals
robbiepitcher 3 months ago
@robbiepitcher Correct --- it was a criminal offense if buses did not discriminate. In the Rosa Parks case, a police officer was called. Same for Plessy, the one-eighth "Negro," of the Plessy vs Ferguson case.
mooninquirer 3 months ago
@nataslived999 It is actually more extreme, because it was a CRIMINAL OFFENSE not to discriminate against Blacks !
Business did NOT want the Jim Crow laws to be passed, because they lost money in creating separate facilities, and in being forced to turn away customers.
mooninquirer 3 months ago
@nataslived999 but what about in certain rural areas in the South... small towns in Missouri, Georgia, Alabama etc. that are dominated by small local businesses. Some of these parts of the country are still loaded with racists.
I guess people could just move somewhere else and vote with their feet, but for some people that's tough to do financially and due to family obligations etc.
IcyScythe 3 months ago
@IcyScythe The BUSINESSES would not want to discriminate, UNLESS all of the townspeople would boycott them. Businesses lose a lot of money by doing so. They especially do not not want more regulations, and people to have a chip on their shoulder to the effect that "you CANNOT fire me." A business owner wants to be able to fire a person for any reason, especially disloyalty. They hate the civil rights acts more than TAXES, and that is saying a lot. Indeed, they are a form of communism.
mooninquirer 3 months ago
That part comparing discrimination to murder was just absurd. She said being racist is as bad as committing murder, and then went on to say that it's fine to personally be racist, so doesn't that mean she supports having the right to murder?
1danyol1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL'BIRTHDAY' MONEYBOMB IS ON SATURDAY, AUG 20, PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD AND HELP DONATE TO THE CAMPAIGN ON - AUG 20, 2011
theleemeister 6 months ago
The blond was doing well in the debate, until she made that murder statement.
scotth602 6 months ago
ThinkProgress is a twisted backwards and negative fraudulent person. The classic liberal mindset, where they wish they dwell in a broken down land full of racism and hatred, where religious religious right-wing nuts run wild, where they can openly discriminate against anybody who thinks differently. Unfortunately, when hit with facts, these idiots crumble.
vabado4u 6 months ago
stossel should replace her...........NOW!
iluvpoliticzz 6 months ago
Rand Paul is correct. The other side of the coin is the government is full of whores and exploitation. We constantly hear about the "Latino, Black, minority votes". Lobbyist pay to have a politician to regulate to their whim and thats just not American or free trade.
rungsat1 7 months ago
Business's that are racist fail in 2 ways. One, no one will shop there. Two, if it refuses to higher members of a difference race it will lose out on those talents and productivity. Both naturally and productively weed out racism in business without government oppression and regulation on a mans right to his property. There is little else more sacred in this world than a man's right to own himself. Infringe on that right and you compromise on the principles that made us great.
adulby 7 months ago
I'm eating a sandwich right now that is more intelligent than the lady in this clip
grapevine808 7 months ago
Why is this a debate? If I own it and don't want u there its my right. Please big brother get off our backs and try to do something constructive like not allowing Obama to sell our country to the Chinese Government. A business not serving everyone American wont last...simple and stupid on their part, but it is their right to discriminate, just as it is Wal-Mart's right to say I can't bring in my gun...business is just lost that way, its our right...even if acting on it is stupid.
RaistMajeres 7 months ago
@RaistMajeres , it is not anyone's right to discriminate in a business open to the public, since in the U.S. the public has equal rights.
You can't compare Wal-mart banning guns, that isn't discrimination of race or religion or gender, it is just a public safety concern.
yarnpower 7 months ago
@yarnpower Discrimination is anyone telling you, no, because of a flaw about you. My concern for public safety says that in TX they openly carry and conceal firearms and have the lowest crime rate...hmmm public safety concern, I dnt think so, democratic liberal agenda, is more like it. I also know what the laws say about equal rights, and mine is to voice my opinion just as you are, isn't freedom great. Your views on discrimination are lacking, it is a much vaguer subject than u make it seem.
RaistMajeres 7 months ago
@RaistMajeres , I don't where you read that Texas has the lowest crime rate because that isn 't true, they are about in the middle range of all U.S. states. The New England states followed by the wealthier states of California and Wisconsin, have the lowest violent and property crime rates. The poorer Southern states have the highest crime rates. The crime rates seem to be about poverty, as the more poverty in a state, the higher rate of crime.
yarnpower 7 months ago
Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve a man in Ku Klux Klan uniform?
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 thats clearly diff. if a blak restaurant owner in harlem refused to serve a white customer in jeans, thats wrong and illegal. y must it be a ku klux klan thing? stossel like many whites are so delusional +naive about this country's past. gets big govt did jim crow but cant grasp it also did so with homestead laws, first mortgage loans, social security +of course slavery. all this was white privilege and affirmative action. its all evil now that whities dont have a monopoly!
reg12269 7 months ago
It's not different at all. Discrimination is discrimination. I don't see Stossel as delusional. You're right; all of those misfortunes were the result of government intervention.
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 its delusional for although i'm a rand and very much a stossel supporter overall, he like her ignores that the great majority are instinctively emotional and always will be. its never pragmatic to assume as people have more freedom and a voice that they will not push their self-interest +want guarantees. if i go in a restaurant with my son, +i'm told to get out nigger or we dont serve ur kind, there should be a LEGAL price to pay. reality trumps any libertarian theory!
reg12269 7 months ago
This has to do with private property. Can you imagine what would happen to the restauranteur who would say that to you and your son in this day and age? People will start protesting and stop eating there. It'll make the newspaper and probably the local news. Competition takes place: The restauranteur in question loses a large part of the market and eventually goes out of business while his competitors profit. Not to mention, that would have been a product of government imposed segregation laws.
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 pt2. reminds me of the drug laws.. hey throw away the key for blaks. the minute whites start getting busted, oh no.. we must change these unfair laws. if john stossel or you were subject to the reality of race as i and most blaks routinely endure esp i the south, no way you would stick to ur theory convenience. if i woke up blonde and white tomorrow, i may agree with ur theory. easy to be tough on shit you will likely never SUFFER!
reg12269 7 months ago
I don't know what you've gone through and I'm not going to pretend to know what it's like to suffer from racism. Having said that, I do not factor in race when I'm developing my beliefs unless the problem in question inherently involves race; I, like Stossel, detest collectivism. Many of the negative consequences of drugs today are the result of the war on drugs. eg. Crystal meth and Crack cocaine were developed as a cheaper & stronger alternative to other drugs as well as more potent marijuana.
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 well, guess our issue is that i fundamentally believe that politically +civically one must view people collectively on social issues. economically, should be based on individualism, likewise with how i pick relationships PERSONALLY. politics =people, not individuals. identity group affiliation must dominate pragmatically. theory again clashes with reality here!
reg12269 7 months ago
From the stance of the bureaucrat/politician, yes, it's impossible to not see people as groups (one reason why government is inefficient). But from the point of the actors, both social & economic affairs are entirely and necessarily individualistic- evinced by your relationship example. Groups can always be suppressed by law (for instance, as were blacks in Jim Crow South). If interested, I'd recommend The Clash of Group Interests by Ludwig von Mises (available on Mises*org for free).
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 thanks i just got that website. i am very familiar with mr. von mises. in reality, there is no pure individualism. we all get conceived in collectivism. choice we have after consciousness at around age 7 is whether we will continue in mob-collectivism or go within and trust self-collectivism! only in deep abstracts are we even close to individualism.
reg12269 7 months ago
I don't know what you mean when you say that "there is no pure individualism." Mises hasn't made the argument that collectivism doesn't exist (if I'm inferring your comments accurately). It's absolutely false to say that individualism doesn't exist (eg. I am hungry; I make a sandwich; I eat the sandwich. No collectivism, just individual action.) Self-collectivism seems to be, on it's face, an oxymoron. And I don't understand what you claim happens at age 7.
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 sorry. should have been clearer. meant POLITICALLY +SOCIETALLY OR SOCIALLY. between 5-7 is when we come into conscious memory. do u know in clarity what happened when you were age 3? point is from the womb to your parents out of the womb, possible older sibling,neighbors, extended family, community, region, state + son.. we are never really allowed to live solitarily in peace, always the collective
reg12269 7 months ago
I remember watching a Navy/Army football game when I was 4 y/o when it was POURING out. I get it now! You're alternating definitions- the term "collectivism" has many implications. When collectivity is used politically, it's basically used as an umbrella for many different forms of socialism. You mean it now as a habit of individuals to form meaningful relationships with others. That action is not only individualistic, but discriminatory. Individualism does not necessarily argue for isolation.
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 pt2. there is a reason politicians incl ron paul +even ayn rand when talking politics always said the american people or we say my family.. those are COLLECTIVE or STATIST terms. in politics, u must deal with expediency +pragmatics. if ur ron paul with a majority + say u have a majority that all support a flat tax or a social issue. you have to make it LAW, regulation with strong enforcement force for u cant trust the next guy. that makes you STATIST +collective by default.
reg12269 7 months ago
"pt2." is equivalent to my prior statement "From the stance of the bureaucrat/politician, yes, it's impossible to not see people as groups (one reason why government is inefficient)." And, I may add, is why the free market trumps govt action. That the government necessarily uses force & coercion and is unresponsive to signals at anything approaching comparison to the free market isn't a surprise to me; it's a truism. Ron Paul and Ayn Rand want as little force (government) as possible.
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 in real world, all of political +societal/social life is about COLLECTIVISM. about whether its self-collectivism (where we come to it with our own ideas +dynamics as precedence) or mob-collectivism. (where we come to it with others as precedence). yep the free market would solve racism, thats where a stossel is naive. in many places, even now, a biz could make more $ by discriminating against muslims, blaks+latinos. then u have to ask ur workers these discriminating ques +so on
reg12269 7 months ago
Self collectivism is an oxymoron and mob collectivism is redundant. As I said before, yes, there are many meanings for collectivism and you keep shifting your definition of it in your speech. That I refer to a group of students (collectivity) is hardly equivalent to my advertising a state controlled system of production (collectivism). The free market wouldn't "solve" racism, but it would certainly produce far better results than the state is capable of doing (for instance, affirmative action).
Goodatconnect4 7 months ago
Go John Stossel!
jpzxcvbnm 7 months ago
@StatisticalPower
Nazis also supported gun control
Liberals support gun control
Liberals, why do you support gun control like Nazis?
Nazis hated Jews.
Democrats hate Israel.
Idiot.
Democrats, why are you anti-semetic Nazis?
ConRevolutionary 7 months ago
I like Megyn Kelly but Stossel is right on target. Let firms do whatever they want to do. This is American in the 21st century not 1960. If any firm were to discriminate the free market clean any business's clock and drive them out for being racist/sexist/anti semitic. Stossel has some balls to admit that on America Live, but he's right, we ALL harmlessly discriminate if its a gas station or grocery store.
Thestarvinstudent 7 months ago
If privet business were to discriminate, it would lead to more than just a simple boycott. It would fuel violent actions and reprisals. The government would be involved either way; imagine state police protecting a white supremacist supermarket bc they had received a large amount of death threats. How much would that cost, my fellow libertarians?
firerulesthesky 7 months ago
lol @ anti-choice libertarians. At least make it a state's rights issue.
Zender1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Ames, Iowa Straw poll is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011. Because of this, it is imperative to catapult Ron Paul to victory in the straw poll. On July 19, 2011, we will hold an online money bomb in support of Ron Paul for President 2012, with the goal to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll.
Please invite all your friends and help Ron Paul end our costly military involvements overseas, shrink the size of our government and restore the republic
JULY 19, 2011 - Ames Straw Poll Moneybomb!
theleemeister 7 months ago
Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul 2016 (re-election)
Rand Paul 2020
Rand Paul 2024
Gary Johnson 2028
Gary Johnson 2032
One of Ron Paul's grandchildren 2036
re-elect on of Ron Paul's grandchildren 2040
I can see an age of prosperity ahead.
That aside, I agree with Stossel. Whatever happened to a choice to do what you want, especially regarding your own body, private property, etc...? (No, this excludes abortion, which is murder, not a right)
rhinnawi95 7 months ago
I agree with Stossel.
MidNiteR32 7 months ago
Stossel is an idiot. Before the Civil Rights Act, people died because pharmacists, doctors, medical clinics discriminated, not just restaurants.
Anyone can be racist in their private life, not in a business open to the public. A private business is not private if they are open to the public.
Racists can form a business with private membership and be as racist as they want.
yarnpower 7 months ago
@yarnpower You think any business would survive now if it discriminates against people. Whats the difference between having a membership and having anyone being able to go in. So you can have a pharmacy that only members can use but to become a member you have to be white. But there can't be a pharmacy that has no membership but only white peoples prescriptions will be filled. What exactly is the difference?
whothaplaya 7 months ago
@whothaplaya, the big difference is that belonging to a member-ship only business that discriminates would announce quite loudly that you are a racist. That's why there aren't many, people usually want their racism to be kept quiet. Like people talking loudly about favoring racism on the internet wouldn't dare bring up the subject in public.
In the old days when businesses were allowed to discriminate, white customers could use the excuse that it was convenient but they weren't really racist.
yarnpower 7 months ago
@yarnpower I don't see how it would make a difference. If a business opens up thats racist EVERYONE would know within a week.
whothaplaya 7 months ago 24
@whothaplaya , it makes a difference because having a pharmacy, doctor's office, health clinic etc. discriminate can cost someone their life, as time is of the essence in a health emergency.
yarnpower 7 months ago
@yarnpower How long do you think a business that is racist would last? No one will die because a business. Do you know how many pharmacies, doctors offices and clinics are around me and most people.
whothaplaya 7 months ago
@whothaplaya in mississippi, if ur blak and at night, y should you risk being harassed or discriminated against? in certain places, business could go up if ur racist or discriminated against. only a privileged ivory tower white guy like stossel would ever think of making such a dumb statement like that.
reg12269 7 months ago
@reg12269 People are going to be discriminated against no matter what. If a business is racist DON'T GO THERE. Simple as that. You have a right to decide who goes into your house you have a right to decide who goes into your business. There are all black colleges I don't care if the discriminate because they are a private institution and can decide who goes to there school.
whothaplaya 7 months ago
@whothaplaya , just because there are plenty of doctors and pharmacies, etc. around you doesn't take into account that there are many places in the U.S. where such businesses are few and far between. Obviously you haven't traveled that much.
Having worked in the medical field, I know that minutes matter. Any delay in getting medical attention can mean further injury or even death.
yarnpower 7 months ago
@yarnpower No one is going to because a certain doctors office or pharmacy is racist. Again you fail to answer my question. How long do you think a business that discriminates? Most hospitals and ambulances receive some government funding therefore no one is going to die because of a business that discriminates. I do agree minutes matter, but not when it comes to getting a check up or prescription filled. Anything life threatening is dealt with by ambulances and hospitals.
whothaplaya 7 months ago
@whothaplaya , I guess you've never worked in the health field because there are plenty of circumstances where waiting an hour or two for medicine can kill you. As to your own assertion that most ambulance services receive government funding, that isn't true, most are privately owned.
We know from history what a mess things were when discrimination was legal. The vast majority of Americans don't want to backward to that ugly period of our history.
yarnpower 6 months ago
@whothaplaya I agree, but back then, businesses were allowed to be discriminate and courts and law enforcement would never side with minorites. Read "Black Like Me" or ask any black man who grew up at that time. They needed those laws. Now, I think, that law can be eliminated, but any politican that agrees with you and me will not be popular (I'm guessing). Like Rand Paul stated: he liked the overcome of the laws that were passed.
scotth602 6 months ago
Win goes to john stossel
ridaderek 7 months ago 41
@ridaderek His argument fails because he confuses civil right discrimination vs. discriminating special interest and non profit groups where a certain characteristic is relavent to the group or vision of the group.
If you want to make a Christian cafe where it's about preaching and having fun with Christians I'm not going to complain about it, but it's ridiculous to just sweep under the rug these major distinctions and say we already allow discrimination.
RuinSonic 4 months ago
If there were a whites only establishment, I'd drive out of my way to go there!
giftpacker 7 months ago
@chromacopy365 The NFL discriminates women the Nation of Islam discriminates Caucasians.But Barry Goldwater and Milton Friedman were not advocating racism but it was the state government that restricted integration in private enterprise and public locations. The reason why it taken 96 years for afro-americans to vote in the is because of the hateful majority that only made Caucasians eligible to vote.
n64wilbert 7 months ago
@aarondavid826 But he's not a bully or a a stooge would you agree? He's also a libertarian like I am.
RealTime88 8 months ago
When XYZ lunch counter doesn't want to let blacks eat at their restaurant, who do they call to enforce their property right? Police. AGENTS OF THE STATE.
The government defines property rights. It also enforces them, it is inherently backing every transaction via force.
The state has an interest in civil peace, and civil rights. Therefore, stripping private property owners of the ability to discriminate in public places and marketplaces is absolutely the correct decision.
mihoda 8 months ago
@mihoda It should be noted that the state HAS NOT stripped freedom of association from individuals.
Example: If you're a home seller you cannot discriminate in who you sell your home too, but if you're a renter looking for a roommate, you sure can.
mihoda 8 months ago
Stossel is the Man
bobbypeek2 8 months ago
It is a very interesting argument. I see both sides. If you left it up to the store owner in 1964 then I don't think they would let blacks in. But I agree that today they would end up going bankrupt. A liberterian gets caught up in trying to keep gov't out of everything but that is not always possible. In this case they should have left it alone. I also think Affirmative Action is raciest. Mandating hiring is too. We've come a long way but still have more to go.
glenlackey2 8 months ago
STOSSEL!
humanvegetable 8 months ago
@Epicnerdgasm
Before she hosted this show she used to go on Bill O'Reilly's show and correct all his bullshit statements about the law. Most of those segments are great.
EGarrett01 8 months ago
@Epicnerdgasm
She's actually smart though. One of the few I'd let out of the kitchen. :-P
EGarrett01 8 months ago
When the NAACP lets me be CEO as a white guy -then you can pass "thought police" laws all ya want.
SuperFifthwheel 8 months ago
I agree with a lot of a libertarian ideas, but this is one I feel is a little too optimistic about society. People are naturally racist if only slightly.. There are degrees to where the civil rights act go too far in mandating regulations upon who can be hired, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some level of protection against racism.
MRKetter81 8 months ago
@MRKetter81 Is working at a bigots company an inalienable right? Obviously its not. Employers have the right to choose who they employ just like you have the right to choose who you let into your house. Private property IS private property. If you know your employer is a bigot ahead of time, it is far better than passing laws that make him/her hide their ibigotry all the while spitting in your lunch while your not looking, Look elsewhere for a far more ethical employer, is a better option.
SuperFifthwheel 8 months ago
@MRKetter81 the idea is this. If i discriminate against a black man and he is more qualified than the white man i hire over him then my business will suffer. Business's who discriminate often do far worse and often go bankrupt than those who give the job to who deserves it most, regardless of race. Also if any business practices racism then im sure the public will refuse to shop there. If they continue to shop there then it is not the fault of the employer it is that of the people.
adulby 8 months ago
@adulby "Also if any business practices racism then im sure the public will refuse to shop there. If they continue to shop there then it is not the fault of the employer it is that of the people."
And that's my problem with it... People can and often do exactly that. The housing market is a prime example. Housing prices can go up or drop based on ethnicity of the other people in the area. Your being too optimistic about human nature if you think that won't run in to problems.
MRKetter81 8 months ago
@MRKetter81 your right, i am too optimistic about human behavior. I dont think racism is practiced to the degree that any store owner, today, could survive if they displayed their discrimination. A store is private property and in the end. I think that whoever owns it can let whoever they want it in. Whether black, white, yellow, brown, or green. Who are we to force someone to let a certain type of people into their own property. Thats my view i guess. I can understand your arguement.
adulby 8 months ago
@adulby If there is anything I would consider it would be a reform of the civil rights acts I suppose. Yet I would still urge caution as these things tend to have unexpected long term consequences that no one sees at first. Remember how in the short term Socialism does work... only as these socialist countries grow do they realize the problems they created for them selves.
MRKetter81 8 months ago
American Conservatism has gone disastrously in recent years. It served somewhat of a purpose during the cold war, but it's been bastardized into something that only benefits the top 5-10% now, particularly in America. The Rich, DO NOT give back to society like they once did. Look at the mess of under regulation in the American banking sector - total disaster.
The world is sliding to the left, look at the middle-East. It's sad The American moral majority holds the country back.
Rogov8 8 months ago
... Blondie isn't so bright is she...
5that1dude5 8 months ago
John shredded this bimbo.
DartmouthAlum96 9 months ago
People forget that republicans once stood for what was good in America, and now they stand for what is wrong in America
OrganNLou 9 months ago
Stossel is a tool of the right and Fox News!
OrganNLou 9 months ago
Those who oppose discrimination stop eating food and eat shit !
TakisAthensGr 9 months ago
Stossel isn't an attorey, so he doesn't know what he's talking about when comparing private businesses with private property in general, since private commercial property and conduct is not the same thing as private conduct otherwise.
In other words he is overly-simplistic and he comes off sounding like a complete moron on this issue.
Businesses CANNOT discriminate because that's a violation of general commerce-laws, i.e. the good-faith social contract to conduct trade in society with all.
postalmeter 9 months ago
stossel is right.
lucifuehrer 9 months ago
@lucifuehrer
Just because you can't see how he's wrong, doesn't make him right.
postalmeter 9 months ago
@lucifuehrer
Just because you can't see how he's wrong, doesn't make him right.
Stossel is blatanty over-simplifying matters of law that have developed over hundreds of years, and which protect us all-- laws that, as Thomas More said, he would respect if the devil himself were on trial; for otherwise, if you cut down all laws and the devil turned round on you, where would YOU hide, with all laws being cut down?
And then Henry VIII DID cut down all laws, leading to the reign of Bloody Mary.
postalmeter 9 months ago
@postalmeter i see everything. i hide from nothing. judge not, i'll do that.
lucifuehrer 9 months ago
@lucifuehrer
Yeah more like you make it up as you go along.
postalmeter 9 months ago
@postalmeter somebody has to make it.
lucifuehrer 9 months ago
@lucifuehrer
We elect people for that.
postalmeter 9 months ago
@postalmeter thank you. you've done a great job.
lucifuehrer 9 months ago
@lucifuehrer
Better than anarchy.
You simplistic-libertarian-wannabe's just barge into the legal system like a bull in a china-shop, ignoring principles which have developed in law over hundreds of years like theft-bote, omission-duty, invitor-invitee-status etc.with your utopian wishful-thinking about how YOUR little world would be perfect if you cut down all the laws, claiming the devil would never turn round on you, based on expedient pragmatism over principle.
Rebels without a clue.
postalmeter 9 months ago
@postalmeter keep your labels for your blow-up dolls. i am the legal system. the devil is my bitch. i like clues.
lucifuehrer 9 months ago
@lucifuehrer
You WANT clues, because you don't have ONE.
postalmeter 9 months ago
@postalmeter <<<---clueless douchebag.
lucifuehrer 9 months ago
@lucifuehrer
A least I'm rich, trailer-boy. LOL
postalmeter 9 months ago
This is getting old they need to give it up freedom of right to choose is everyones right
rumpelstillskin65 9 months ago
@rumpelstillskin65
Choices carry consequences; including those which preclude other choices which may have been viable beforehand.
Here, Stossel claims that profit and popularity are adequate assurances agaist unconscionable choices.
Well crime doesn't pay, but there certainly is a lot of it.
postalmeter 9 months ago
Gotta love Stossel's defense of the "Free market" he believes in the infallibility of the market, like some religious nut believes in a magic sky daddy. But what do I know RON PAUL 2012 lmao
viletree 9 months ago
@viletree Long as you're not a communist atheist (which is hypocritical) then alright...
Rensune 9 months ago
@viletree
The free market is the "duh" principle of SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
The only time it fails is due to government interference, such as with the Federal Reserve causing the Great Depression.
postalmeter 9 months ago
She is soooo retarded, tis amazing.
pantadon 9 months ago
@pantadon
What do you want, she's a blonde.
postalmeter 9 months ago
She's hot when she's mad. She also seems to believe that the public owns restaurants. I find that disconcerting.
musiclander0301 9 months ago 4
If it were up to the GOP and John Stossel today, they would repeal the 14th and 13th amendments so that they could bring back slavery. Because as you all are aware, conservatives think that only the original constitution is valid and think that other than the 2nd and 10th amendments there shouldn't be anything else.
whatukno1975 9 months ago
@whatukno1975 You have no clue about American history. Southern DEMOCRATS created the KKK as a reactionary measure against the republicans -who were appealing black freedom in the north. Abraham Lincoln was a republican and helped start the process to free slaves. Martin Luther King was a REPUBLICAN LIBERTARIAN like Stossel and spoke used the constitution to promote the right to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness to all black americans.
SuperFifthwheel 9 months ago 10
@SuperFifthwheel The GOP and the Democrats today are polar opposites of what they were back then. Today the GOP is very exclusionary, very totalitarian, very evil. They claim that they want smaller government. But want to legislate morality, and sexuality.
Also remember that the GOP of today condones torture of POWs, and one Conservative state actually wants the death penalty for abortion.
The right is so anti freedom anymore it's amazing that anyone votes for them.
whatukno1975 9 months ago
@whatukno1975 Stossel is a libertarian. Libertarians do not align with republicans, they only caucass with republican partys due to the anarchist points of veiw they have. Can you prove they are polar opposites from back then? Only in your opinion and dreams.
SuperFifthwheel 9 months ago
@whatukno1975 Fundamentalist muslims believe that killing people is moral and ethical and impose that on their populations. Should they have a right to legalize killing people in the U.S. based on your "imposing morality" theory? No, republicans do not want the death penalty for abortions, where did you hear that line of crap from? Waterboarding is torture if you are a panzy. Radical muslims cut your head of slowly with a knife while you choke to death on your own blood, that's torture
SuperFifthwheel 9 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel In Georgia: Look it up, State Rep. Bobby Franklin wants to make abortion a felony punishable by death.
So Christian Fundamentalists believe that killing people is moral and ethical too. I'm not Muslim nor Christian so neither cult bothers me. Just don't shove your beliefs down my throat.
Hey why don't you go through water-boarding before you say that it's not torture. Hell, ask Jessie Ventura an ex navy seal what his take on it is.
Right wingers, FAIL at every turn.
whatukno1975 9 months ago
@whatukno1975
Only right-wingers do waterboarding?
Obama hasn't lifted a finger to stop it-- when that's ALL he'd have to do; so clearly he's for it.
Clearly the problem isn't only on the right, so you're being a hypcorite.
postalmeter 9 months ago
@postalmeter On January 22 2009 Obama signed an executive order ending waterboarding, stop believing everything that FOX News tells you, they lie.
It's right there on the white house website, for you to view.
He ended the torture program his second day in office. So yes, it's just a right wing problem, right wingers are fascists and think that it's ok to torture POWs under our control.
whatukno1975 9 months ago
Comment removed
postalmeter 9 months ago
@postalmeter Odd, according to the federal archives, he never signed one on February 13 of any year he has been in office. So, I think you are full of shit and are a liar and thus a FOX News drone.
archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2011
archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2010
archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2009-obama
whatukno1975 9 months ago
@whatukno1975
You believe everything Obama does, because you're a BEGINNER.
Try reading something besides the regular meda saying "Gimme an O! Gimme a B! Gimme an A!!!!......."
globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12041
postalmeter 9 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel Hell, Al Qaeda and Conservatives have so much in common y'all might as well be on the same side. The only difference between a conservative and a terrorist is the book they fail at reading.
whatukno1975 9 months ago
@whatukno1975 I'm not a conservative. Im a anti-federalist consequential libertarian. Know the difference. Conservative ideology wants to keep things the same, libertarians want to get government out of peoples lives -i.e. keep government from spying on its citizens, keep the gov from arresting and detaining american citizens without charges, keep the government from managing economics, and keep government out of wars. Anyone who can't see the government is the problem is a moron.
SuperFifthwheel 9 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel I think that's a relatively simplified version of conservatism, but then again libertarianism is another political philosophy, what would you know you care more about gaining followers than truth. If you want a complete lack of government, and you really think genuine libertarianism wouldn't implode into chaos, than I suggest a flight to Somalia or anarchist Russia of the late 19th century.
viletree 9 months ago
@viletree I think that you need to look up consequential libertarianism before you call it anarchy, libertarianism is not anarchy at all, its places heavy constraints on government authority. We believe in states rights and anti-federal gov powers. Its an ideology that says you can do whatever you want (drugs, suicide, and the like) just as long as you dont harm or steal from others prosperity, nor use the government as a tool to steal from others.
SuperFifthwheel 9 months ago
@SuperFifthwheel
I think YOU need to look up "invitee/licensee status" before saying that businesses can discriminate against anyone they please. A social contract must be universal, otherwise we can't be equal under it.
postalmeter 9 months ago
@postalmeter Thanks for your opinion. Your opinion means so much to me. I mean, your opinion is just so right, it should be taken as fact. Your opinion should be in history books as the most noteable opinion of all time. I mean, a social contract, whoda thunk it? Wheres our pens and where do we sign this social contract? You are sooooo intelligent, with your opinion. The only people that make everyone equal is the government and laws and not society. LAWL@EGALITARIANS