Civil Rights and the Libertarian Principle
4 Responses to Civil Rights and the Libertarian Principle
-
tz says:
Just think how much better India would have been if Ghandi was dictator instead of shaming everyone.
Also remember that the push for desegregation by federal force brought about cross-town busing, white flight, and the death of great cities, and the rise of the suburbs (and all the evils recognized by the entire political spectrum).
-
Jack Tracey says:
“The effort to pass the Act diverted the grassroots movement from self-help, mutual aid, and independent community action to lobbying, legislation, and litigation – that is, dependence on the white ruling elite.”
That’s the crux of it all. As soon as a non-political movement begins to cause change, politicians try to bring it under the control of government. I honestly believe that many of them honestly believe that this is necessary to avoid violent conflict among the citizenry. Allowing society to figure it out for itself is just too big a risk in the minds of well-intentioned people who pursue power. Of course I accept the possibility that most politicians are just opportunists with varying degrees of sophistication.
Mr SteveM,
“Richman would have denounced the demonstrators who violated the law and sat-in on private property where they were not welcomed.” I didn’t get that from his column, nor did I find that implicit in the quote you cited. Can you explain further, possibly identifying a specific logical fallacy of which he is guilty? -
SteveM says:
Re: Jack – “Can you explain further, possibly identifying a specific logical fallacy of which he is guilty?”
Sure. If Richman’s going in proposition is that from a Libertarian perspective, the CRA was/is an infringement on free association and private property rights, then he would have had to reject the sit-in strategy based on logical consistency. Even if he was personally opposed to the segregationists private business policies, the sit-in demonstrators illegally transgressed those rights.
Re: From the CSM article:
“Starting in Greensboro, North Carolina, in 1960, lunch counters throughout the South began to be desegregated through direct but peaceful confrontation – sit-ins – staged by courageous students and others who refused to accept humiliating second-class citizenship.”
The logic failure in this argument is that the absolutist Libertarian right of free association trumps unlawful attempts to subvert it. I.e., an absolute Libertarian like Richman would have denounced the demonstrators who violated the law and sat-in on private property where they were not welcomed. And he would have supported their arrest and prosecution for trespassing.
I can’t see that stripe of Libertarian supporting any explicit protest actions beyond lawful picketing on public spaces and peaceful economic boycotts.
The inconsistency is so seemingly stark. How do I have this wrong?