Affirmative action - Kva er det med venstreorienterte?

[jjkoggan]

It would allow discrimination based on skin colour (or any other feature that takes your fancy), not oppression.

So, economic slavery of the same type that the government previously implemented through Jim Crow laws that prevented black access is not oppression?

[Skatteflyktning]

 

So, economic slavery of the same type that the government previously implemented through Jim Crow laws that prevented black access is not oppression?

Yes, that would indeed be oppression, and I am firmly against those, just as I am firmly against affirmative action laws of today for those are also oppressive.

[jjkoggan]

  Yes, that would indeed be oppression, and I am firmly against those, just as I am firmly against affirmative action laws of today for those are also oppressive.

Jim Crow laws mostly restricted access based on race of the same type that private racist citizens can do in your dream society resulting in the same level of oppression. The effect will be the same.

[Skatteflyktning]

 

Jim Crow laws mostly restricted access based on race of the same type that private racist citizens can do in your dream society resulting in the same level of oppression. The effect will be the same.

The difference is that the law forces everyone to behave as a racist, whereas in a free society only racist will behave as a racist.

 

The effect will not be the same, no more than the effect of outlawing drugs or alcohol will be the same as one in which teetotalers are allowed to continue to abstain from drinking no matter how irrational that may seem to the rest.

[jjkoggan]

 The difference is that the law forces everyone to behave as a racist, whereas in a free society only racist will behave as a racist.

 

The effect will not be the same, no more than the effect of outlawing drugs or alcohol will be the same as one in which teetotalers are allowed to continue to abstain from drinking no matter how irrational that may seem to the rest.

The effect could be worse because Jim Crow laws dealt mostly with restricting access to public spaces, not in the private arena. When everything is privatized with no anti-discrimination restrictions local business leaders could work in concert to devastating effect to exclude whomever they pleased. This was largely done during the Jim Crow era and was more responsible for the problems than the laws themselves. If you think there are not areas where this will be done you are incredibly ignorant to the not so distant past

[Skatteflyktning]

The effect could be worse because Jim Crow laws dealt mostly with restricting access to public spaces, not in the private arena.

Actually it seems the main target was sex, and more private than that it is difficult to imagine. Check the following entry to see if you can maintain your belief that it was mostly about restricting access to public spaces. (Of course some might ride on how you define "public space")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_State

 

 

When everything is privatized with no anti-discrimination restrictions local business leaders could work in concert to devastating effect to exclude whomever they pleased. This was largely done during the Jim Crow era and was more responsible for the problems than the laws themselves. If you think there are not areas where this will be done you are incredibly ignorant to the not so distant past

Apparently, please enlighten me with our sources.

[norskgoy]

Hvis du lar barna dine sulter og doer fordi du ikke gir dem mat har du ingen ansvar da ogsaa?

 

Absolutt, ungene tar skade av dine avskylige handlinger. Jeg tar ikke skade av at du er en rasist.

[jjkoggan]

 

Absolutt, ungene tar skade av dine avskylige handlinger. Jeg tar ikke skade av at du er en rasist.

rasister skader andre. Jeg er ingen rasist

[norskgoy]

rasister skader andre. Jeg er ingen rasist

 

Da skader du meg, hvis du mener en rasist skader andre.

[jjkoggan]

 

Da skader du meg, hvis du mener en rasist skader andre.

Først må du vise meg at jeg er rasist

[norskgoy]

Først må du vise meg at jeg er rasist

 

Anklager du et offer for din rasisme å ikke vite sin egen skade av dine grusomme handlinger?

[jjkoggan]

 

Anklager du et offer for din rasisme å ikke vite sin egen skade av dine grusomme handlinger?

Vennligst forklar

[jjkoggan]

Actually it seems the main target was sex, and more private than that it is difficult to imagine. Check the following entry to see if you can maintain your belief that it was mostly about restricting access to public spaces. (Of course some might ride on how you define "public space")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_State

 

 

Apparently, please enlighten me with our sources.

Just one of many examples- racially restricted covenants. Developers would buy property and not only restrict who they sold it to, but restrict all future owners to be white.

 

A covenant is a legally enforceable “contract” imposed in a deed upon the buyer of property. Owners who violate the terms of the covenant risk forfeiting the property. Most covenants “run with the land” and are legally enforceable on future buyers of the property.

Racially restrictive covenants refer to contractual agreements that prohibit the purchase, lease, or occupation of a piece of property by a particular group of people, usually African Americans. Racially restrictive covenants were not only mutual agreements between property owners in a neighborhood not to sell to certain people, but were also agreements enforced through the cooperation of real estate boards and neighborhood associations

http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive-Covenants.html

 

And no, the main target was not sex, you are deluding yourself.

[Skatteflyktning]

Interesting point, though I might point out that in my view the timehorizon of such covenants cannot be illimited (ie run with the land).

 

And no, the main target was not sex, you are deluding yourself.

It would be more correct to point your fire to the list of Jim Crow laws by wikipedia, as undoubtedly that is what did "delude" me. (Assuming I am deluded, which would presuppose that the list is not representative of reality in some way).

[jjkoggan]

Interesting point, though I might point out that in my view the timehorizon of such covenants cannot be illimited (ie run with the land).

 

It would be more correct to point your fire to the list of Jim Crow laws by wikipedia, as undoubtedly that is what did "delude" me. (Assuming I am deluded, which would presuppose that the list is not representative of reality in some way).

More than just an interesting point, it created thousands of towns (called sundowner towns) where minorities were effectively excluded in perpetuity. This blatant racism condemned minorities to ghettoes and poverty, perpetrated by private interests, not state interests, but just as effective

[Skatteflyktning]

Private interest (contract) is never as effective as that which is enforced by a monopoly of violence.

 

That said I do not see the concept of a contractual clause that "follows the land in perpetuity" as a possibly valid legal concept, though it may be valid for some time (normally until the party that retains the right to the limitation dies or abandons it).

Endret 7. januar 2014 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

Private interest (contract) is never as effective as that which is enforced by a monopoly of violence.

 

That said I do not see the concept of a contractual clause that "follows the land in perpetuity" as a possibly valid legal concept, though it may be valid for some time (normally until the party that retains the right to the limitation dies or abandons it).

If private interest is unified and powerful it can be just as effective. This is how lynching of blacks took place without punishment. Private citizens were so unified in their racism and desire for segregation inmany places and it was nearly impossible to convict a white person for murdering a Black person. Private citizens effectively negated state power in many cases.

 

Without the more powerful federal power or no state at all, these lynchings would likely still continue because private citizens believed they were justified

[Skatteflyktning]

Yes they probably would, just as taking of private property and slavery (conscription) by the State continues because private citizens believe they are justified.

 

 

Do you have any other solution than to persuade those that do not agree with you?

Endret 8. januar 2014 av Skatteflyktning