• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Can Public Opinion Alone Support Equality?

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
So a while back, the Pauls were grilled by the media for not supporting the Civil Rights Act. Ron Paul's website claims that

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (...) was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

Paul suggested that instead of federally enforcing racial equality, that buisinesses that treated everyone as equal would prevail over buisinesses that were exclusive to one race. Not only is it unconstitutional, he argued, but also not necessary or the federal government to meddle in private businesses for the purpose of fighting racial inequality, because buisinesses would eventually reflect public opinion, which was already turning toward equality, and racism would naturally become unpopular and die anyway.

This might be the case with racial inequality. But can we extend this libertarian reasoning toward other federal laws that violated property rights, such as maybe, the Americans With Disabilities Act?

Signed in 1991, this act required all public places to be wheelchair accessible, which, it can be reasoned is an imposition on buisinesses, because government shouldn't tell them how they should build their property, who they should cater to, or what they have to pay for.

From Wikipedia:

The US Chamber of Commerce argued that the costs of the ADA would be “enormous” and have “a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive”.[16] The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbies for small businesses, called the ADA “a disaster for small business.”[17] Pro-business conservative commentators joined in opposition, writing that the Americans with Disabilities Act was “an expensive headache to millions” that would not necessarily improve the lives of people with disabilities.

Obviously, I am biased, because I use a wheelchair, but today, I see the ADA as utterly indispensible, because I love that city buses have wheelchair lifts, and that almost every corner of my city has a wheelchair ramp for me to use. Thank you, President Bush Sr., you have made it possible for me to live my life. And being formerly a liberal, and now an anti-war independant, that gratitude is incredibly ironic.

But can Ron Paul say the same thing about the ADA that he said about the Civil Rights Act, that public opinion would have eventually put a wheelchair ramp on every corner and a lift in every bus anyway, because without all the handicapped people buisinesses would...suffer? This reasoning does not click with me. How much power does compassion have over buisiness without it being signed into law? Do people with disabilities and their adovcates have the power to pressure buisiness to be wheelchair accessible on their own, or do we need to rely on a government mandate? Or, since the ADA was passed, will we ever know? : /

And I would argue the Civil Rights Act is indispensible as well. How far can public pressure go when it comes to fighting for the rights and opportunities of others? Is leaving buisinesses alone and letting the public determine which succeed going to the give us the same equal opportunity environment that the government tries to by lawfully enforcing equality?
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
You know I can understand Ron Paul's reasoning in some areas in which you have a heavy minority populous. At that point businesses can't take the hit and are forced to change. However in places in which a minority is truly a minority, businesses can afford to discriminate with out reason, and at that point the Civil Rights Act is truly needed.

I never really thought of the ADA in the argument, but you bring up a amazing point. Unlike say Blacks or Hispanics, there never truly is a massive set of disabled people, that could influence a business bottom line.

To that conclusion, there is a time in which the Government does need to step in, because market forces will never truly be strong enough to enforce change.
 

bel9

n3w 2 sppf :3
I remember hearing about Paul talk about this when I was listening to [NPR?]

I noticed this in Italy. They have absolutely nothing for the handicapped/elderly. I felt bad for the old people that were staying at the same hotel as us on the last night. The hotel was at the top of a large hill. The bus driver dropped us all off at the bottom and basically gave the message, "hike up the hill with your luggage guys. I don't have to deal with you anymore." Upon arriving at the hotel, the lack of handicapped accessibility became even more clear because there was no elevator. [we helped them with the luggage] It was a sweet hotel and we ninja'd the roof, but like many of the other hotels and buildings* in Italy this hotel wasn't handicapped friendly at all.

Yes, we should be thankful the government stepped in. As Lutz pointed out, there probably wouldn't be a large enough of disabled people to push the market in the direction of providing services to the handicapped [Maybe wed'd. I think that the ADA was important because of the power handicapped individuals won. They wouldn't have to rely as heavily on family/friends for assistance.

Interestingly, some private clubs and religious organizations were excluded from this. Does anyone have any specifics on the religious organizations [churches?] that were excluded?

Also, we got some sweet bathroom stalls out of this that are slightly larger than regular stalls. Everybody wins.

*Excluding some of the more historic buildings in Italy. I suppose they have a legitimate excuse to try and keep the building in tact.
 

Sasholon

Well-Known Member
Can you make equality into a law? no. If we tried, we would live in a world such as the one in the short story Harrison Bergeron. Equality is something we humans have to come up for ourselves. as long as there are inequalities among each race and inequalities medically and skillfully, no amount of laws will fix it.
 

Aquanova

Well-Known Member
I think that private enterprise should be able to discriminate at will.

Im sorry, but I have to ask why you think that it would be ok for a business to be able to turn someone away and deny products and services to people over things as trivial as race or being handicapped. These people are consumers too that have money to spend.
 

jamaela18

All-Round Breeder
No you can't. Poor people don't have the same rights as rich people and thats not gonna change.
 
But can Ron Paul say the same thing about the ADA that he said about the Civil Rights Act, that public opinion would have eventually put a wheelchair ramp on every corner and a lift in every bus anyway, because without all the handicapped people businesses would...suffer? This reasoning does not click with me. How much power does compassion have over business without it being signed into law? Do people with disabilities and their advocates have the power to pressure business to be wheelchair accessible on their own, or do we need to rely on a government mandate? Or, since the ADA was passed, will we ever know?
The ADA was not as good a thing as it seems on its face. What is not so widely known is that it ended up creating a fairly nasty racket, to the delight of some of the more foul drive-by lawyers. Hundreds of small businesses have been hit with "ADA-premises" lawsuits--often over utterly petty things:
Peter Kourkoumeils, owner of the Peter Pan Diner in the Oakland Park suburb of Fort Lauderdale told Sun Sentinel newspaper reporter Shannon O'Boye, he spent $500 to move a toilet half an inch and to purchase two signs denoting handicap accessibility, and another $3,500 to Wilson's lawyers.
Even businesses that specialize in mobility for the disabled could not avoid the occasional shakedown. I'm approaching this from a different angle than would most libertarians--the ADA is bad, not because it violates property rights (although it does), but because it very clearly hurts small businesses and enriches lawyers who have turned this legislative gift into a cash cow.
And I would argue the Civil Rights Act is indispensable as well. How far can public pressure go when it comes to fighting for the rights and opportunities of others? Is leaving businesses alone and letting the public determine which succeed going to the give us the same equal opportunity environment that the government tries to by lawfully enforcing equality?
The bulk of the civil rights movement's victories were won by public pressure, so I would say that public pressure is far from impotent.

But from whence does the state derive the right to compel a business owner to serve anyone, much less those whom he or she would sooner not?
Im sorry, but I have to ask why you think that it would be ok for a business to be able to turn someone away and deny products and services to people over things as trivial as race or being handicapped. These people are consumers too that have money to spend.
Because it is a private business, privately owned, and privately operated, and it operates within the volition of its owners and operators. It follows that they shouldn't be forced by the state or by anyone else to provide for anyone they do not wish to, as the only reason they provide for anyone at all is because they have chosen to do so. The public at large does not have the right to access my business, any more than have they the right to sleep in my bed. I can let them do so, but when government forcibly ushers me into doing it, the problem is evident.
 
Last edited:

Alleviate

Banned
Im sorry, but I have to ask why you think that it would be ok for a business to be able to turn someone away and deny products and services to people over things as trivial as race or being handicapped. These people are consumers too that have money to spend.

Because as an institution not controlled by the federal government it is their right to run their business as they wish. Hooters does this all the time, as do cultural restaurants. An employer can already dismiss every applicant of any race or sex indiscriminantly, they merely have to give a false reason as to why they were not given the position. I contend that one might as well be able to speak his or her mind. And if the power of this consumer demographic is so great, the establishment will be forced to accept that which they do not want to accept or they will be driven out of business.

This would go both ways though, as I'm very certain that whites would be on the recieving end of much of this newfound liberty of enterprise. The majority of businesses that used this liberty would be subject to boycott from virtually every well-informed individual in our tolerant 'enlightened age' anyways.
 
Last edited:

jigsawtimes

purple pokemon ftw
Im sorry, but I have to ask why you think that it would be ok for a business to be able to turn someone away and deny products and services to people over things as trivial as race or being handicapped. These people are consumers too that have money to spend.

i definitely do not agree with discrimination, but i think that there is more than enough selection of places to shop that some businesses can turn away customers if they want to. After all, they're the ones losing out, not you.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Laws for equality will work as good as laws for gun control, drug laws & the like. It's sad but a sign of our society.
 
Top