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

[TNF]

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.

Yes (D)

[TNF]

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.

Because property rights > human rights.

[TNF]

It's fun seeing pasty white teenagers saying how evil it is to require businesses to not turn away black customers/prospective employees due to race.

You do realize you are literally advocating thought crimes by advocating laws to prohibit employment discrimination. How can you expect an government official charged with enforcing equal opportunity for employment to determine whether an employer was being discriminatory in his decision? You do not have a mind-control device, so presumably you would have to use equality of outcome as the benchmark since equality of opportunity is impossible to enforce. However, by mandating equality of outcome, you are effectively forcing the employer to racially discriminate in his hiring decisions in order to achieve the desired racial quota to avoid legal harassment.

ITT: White people complaining about things that don't harm them.