Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:33:00 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Poll
Question: Well, would you have?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
No (D)
 
#3
Yes (R)
 
#4
No (R)
 
#5
Yes (I/O)
 
#6
No (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 150

Author Topic: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  (Read 13240 times)
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 03, 2012, 08:11:25 AM »

Let's see where the chips fall on this one. I'm interested in seeing how many libertarians step up to defend human liberty by voting in favor. Tongue

Yes (D)
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2012, 08:14:24 AM »

Umm...yes?
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2012, 10:01:05 AM »

Yes (R) as the flaws in the bill aren't nearly just enough cause to vote against it.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2012, 01:21:56 PM »

I'm the first No vote so far.  Title II (public accommodations) is somewhat problematic for me, yet the need to ensure that people have the freedom to travel wherever they wish means I could support it, tho I do wish the law had defined public accommodation a bit more narrowly to exclude entertainment venues as those are not necessary for there to be a freedom to travel.  Title VII (employment) is far more problematic. and thus I could not vote for this bill.

While it is generally stupid to discriminate on the basis of any of the reasons banned in Title VII, I firmly believe that it is not the role of government to outlaw private stupidity, as it has often been only a short distance from that to some egregious violations of human rights.  ("It's stupid to allow the <insert name of ethnic group> to <immigrate, hold certain professions, marry outside their group, etc.>)

Why the difference in my views on Titles II and VII?  Basically, it's because of the length and degree of the economic relationship involved.  Title VII is forcing private individuals to engage in long-term economic relationships with people they would rather not have to deal with.  Whereas, with public accommodations, there isn't a long-term relationship that needs to be entered into (altho there may well be long-term customers).

The rest of the Act I would be cheerfully able to support.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2012, 03:19:36 PM »

No, for the reasons True Federalist outlined.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2012, 03:22:53 PM »

Yes. Those who think that any real or perceived flaws in the Act as passed justify voting No have pretty skewed priorities.
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2012, 03:24:20 PM »

Yes
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2012, 03:27:48 PM »

Yes (not a racist).
Logged
CountryRoads
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 693
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2012, 03:31:24 PM »

Yes. (R/I/O)
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2012, 04:02:07 PM »

Yes. Those saying no seem to be pretty utopian in their ideology.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2012, 04:05:43 PM »

Yes (L), with some reservations that get easily overridden.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2012, 04:25:54 PM »

Yes (Southern D)
Logged
CountryRoads
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 693
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2012, 04:27:54 PM »

Just to add on, I agree with True Federalist's post, but I'd still vote yes as the bill as awhole is a great thing.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2012, 05:59:43 PM »

Yes, for the same reason I would have voted for the Affordable Care Act.  The Civil Rights Act was more of a statement on the issue of race and segregation.  It didn't solve the problem of systemic racism, but it did change perceptions on a lot of things.
I'm sorry but anyone who disagrees with this is either ignorant of what the issue of race meant in the 1960s or simply didn't care about the wellbeing of their fellow human beings suffering in Alabama or Mississippi.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,062
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2012, 06:06:10 PM »

No (R).
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2012, 06:11:29 PM »

Just to add on, I agree with True Federalist's post, but I'd still vote yes as the bill as awhole is a great thing.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2012, 06:50:10 PM »

Yes. Those saying no seem to be pretty utopian in their ideology.

I don't see anyone making utopian arguments here.  People not being pragmatic perhaps.  Those are too very different things, as utopians often have no trouble being extremely pragmatic in seeking their goals.

Most of the utopian rhetoric at the time was in favor of the CRA (not at all to say that one had to be utopian to support it).
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2012, 06:56:46 PM »

What do you think? 
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2012, 06:59:38 PM »

I'm sorry but anyone who disagrees with this is either ignorant of what the issue of race meant in the 1960s or simply didn't care about the wellbeing of their fellow human beings suffering in Alabama or Mississippi.

Disagrees that it was a perception-changing statement? It certainly was. Or disagree with the Act (and its Constitutionality)? Because they are two very different things altogether.

That's my point.  The fact that it was a perception-changing statement makes all other disagreements void.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2012, 07:10:58 PM »

No, mostly for the reasons Ernest outlined. I do not believe the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate purely private behavior and determine who a private individual can and cannot do business with, even if that decision is based on someone's race or religion (as offensive as it is). The Supreme Court's use of the Commerce Clause in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung is tortuous to say the least (as has been most Commerce Clause cases since Wickard v. Filburn), but it is the law of the land and this entire discussion is rather pointless because of that. That said, there was much in the Act that was necessary and should have been passed, and that I would happily support, but not those sections.

And now let's see the liberals call people racists.

I won't call you a racist, but I most certainly will call you naive (yes, TrueFederalist, you are in the club too).
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2012, 07:16:23 PM »

Yes. Those saying no seem to be pretty utopian in their ideology.

I don't see anyone making utopian arguments here.  People not being pragmatic perhaps.  Those are too very different things, as utopians often have no trouble being extremely pragmatic in seeking their goals.

Most of the utopian rhetoric at the time was in favor of the CRA (not at all to say that one had to be utopian to support it).

You guys (assuming you would have voted no) aren't utopian, just plain naive. You really think discrimination in jobs and accommodations would have ended on their own? When things like that are ingrained into the entire society, they don't change without something of the scale of the Civil Rights Act.

I guess it's also very easy for white men to think about this in completely theoretical terms, isn't it? It's not like you would have been impacted regardless of what transpired without the CRA.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2012, 10:06:24 PM »

You guys (assuming you would have voted no) aren't utopian, just plain naive. You really think discrimination in jobs and accommodations would have ended on their own? When things like that are ingrained into the entire society, they don't change without something of the scale of the Civil Rights Act.

I guess it's also very easy for white men to think about this in completely theoretical terms, isn't it? It's not like you would have been impacted regardless of what transpired without the CRA.

Discrimination was only kept alive in the South because Jim Crow laws made it mandatory. No business that wanted to make a profit would purposefully prohibit a third of the population from being customers. Prohibiting discrimination by private businesses prevented racists from being punished at the marketplace since they were forced to accommodate blacks anyway. It also opened up the slippery slope of intrusion into property rights since it is impossible to tell if one is being discriminatory by making an employment decision absent a mind-reader. Hence, Title VII only encouraged racism by effectively forcing employers to take race into account when making hiring decisions, lest they be accused of discrimination.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2012, 10:36:59 PM »

You guys (assuming you would have voted no) aren't utopian, just plain naive. You really think discrimination in jobs and accommodations would have ended on their own? When things like that are ingrained into the entire society, they don't change without something of the scale of the Civil Rights Act.

I guess it's also very easy for white men to think about this in completely theoretical terms, isn't it? It's not like you would have been impacted regardless of what transpired without the CRA.

Discrimination was only kept alive in the South because Jim Crow laws made it mandatory. No business that wanted to make a profit would purposefully prohibit a third of the population from being customers. Prohibiting discrimination by private businesses prevented racists from being punished at the marketplace since they were forced to accommodate blacks anyway. It also opened up the slippery slope of intrusion into property rights since it is impossible to tell if one is being discriminatory by making an employment decision absent a mind-reader. Hence, Title VII only encouraged racism by effectively forcing employers to take race into account when making hiring decisions, lest they be accused of discrimination.

But would Jim Crow laws have changed without the CRA?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2012, 11:46:23 PM »

You guys (assuming you would have voted no) aren't utopian, just plain naive. You really think discrimination in jobs and accommodations would have ended on their own? When things like that are ingrained into the entire society, they don't change without something of the scale of the Civil Rights Act.

I guess it's also very easy for white men to think about this in completely theoretical terms, isn't it? It's not like you would have been impacted regardless of what transpired without the CRA.

Discrimination was only kept alive in the South because Jim Crow laws made it mandatory. No business that wanted to make a profit would purposefully prohibit a third of the population from being customers. Prohibiting discrimination by private businesses prevented racists from being punished at the marketplace since they were forced to accommodate blacks anyway. It also opened up the slippery slope of intrusion into property rights since it is impossible to tell if one is being discriminatory by making an employment decision absent a mind-reader. Hence, Title VII only encouraged racism by effectively forcing employers to take race into account when making hiring decisions, lest they be accused of discrimination.

But would Jim Crow laws have changed without the CRA?

You're using a straw man. I'm not opposed to the entirety of the CRA; the only sections I am opposed to are the ones that interfere with private property. I would support it if Titles II and VII were eliminated.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2012, 12:25:50 AM »

And again, it's what that reasoning for voting against such legislation says about your priorities that's problematic, not the argument itself. I don't often accuse people of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, because I do it myself a fair amount, but this is a big, fat, glow-in-the-dark example.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 14 queries.