Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
If you write about it, it appears very speculative and in most cases is wrong. It is not without reason that you usually do not even try to support your personal attacks with quotes and links - this usually would be impossible.What you do not know is read from your own posts, and not speculative.
Which means that you have no idea about the meaning of freedom of contract, at least in its classical liberal variant. There may be some American liberal newspeak phrase "freedom of contract", which means something very different. Up to now, I have been unable to make sense of this phrase as you use it - your claim that you would use my notion is simply complete nonsense, trivially wrong.They were defenses of freedom of contract, not violations
Once they are prevented from rejecting contracts on certain specific grounds, they are prevented from executing their own freedom of contract, which includes the right to reject any contract without even giving a reason, and, if they chose to give a reason, the right to reject any contract for any imaginable reason. Of course, rejecting a contract for racial reasons is simply a particular case of rejecting for personal whim. So your claim is in contradiction even with elementary logic. Or yet another example of American liberal newspeak.and you are not describing them accurately - no one is or ever was forced to contract with anyone they had individual reason to reject. They were only prevented from rejecting contracts on specific class grounds proven to lead to denial of civil rights and liberties - all other reasons for rejection, including personal whim and so forth, remain.
If you want to repeat meaningless (because unsupported) claims, go to some church. You can repeat this claim even fifteen thousand times, it does not become more true from repetition.As fifteen times before, there were, and it was.
Why should I make such meaningless contentions? I have not made any claims about motels in the Confederacy, nor before nor after 1964. People in totalitarian states do what the law prescribes, because they have to, and this proves nothing about liberal government. There was no black revolt against slavery, and there is no white revolt against modern slavery (at least if you do not count electing Trump as a revolt).The proof is of course in the fact that as soon as people were allowed to make them (the racists having been curbed by law), they did. All over the US.
Or is it your contention that every motel stay by a black person in the Confederacy since 1964 has been an imposition on an unwilling white racist?
That they violate elementary property rights, which clearly include the right to deny entry to every person for whatever reason (including morally reprehensible racist reasons) as well as the right to refuse to make contracts to every person for whatever reason (including morally reprehensible racist reasons) is obvious and trivial.They (the civil rights laws and Constitutional provisions under discussion) do not violate classical liberal principles - you are in error about that.
You don't even understand that my claim was not about American reality. It is about a hypothetical situation, namely about "allowing white racial discrimination in commercial dealings", and that this would lead to some consequences in a liberal government. This cannot be falsified by any facts about US reality, given that US reality never was liberal. Before it was full of racist laws and regulations, now it is also full of anti-liberal elements, now more anti-white than the traditional anti-black. But is was never really liberal. It was at best American liberal, whatever this means.You have been informed of a physical reality, concerning a matter of which you are confessedly ignorant, by those who are not. You have been offered several examples, and a great deal of evidence, which you simply denied when you did not willfully rephrase and deflect it. Now you demand "proof". And at that ridiculous juncture, I remember that the entire matter was never more than an illustration in the first place - an attempt to make an argument you were having trouble following easier for you to grasp.
But freedom of contract and private ownership do not lead to such conflicts. Only in your fantasy, they lead to a conflict with some unspecified list of "basic civil rights and liberties", which has nothing to do with classical liberal rights and liberties.the possibility of it exposes the flaw in your formulation of liberalism: you cannot incorporate certain physical realities into what is supposed to be a theory of governance, a theory that is supposed to guide actual, real life government. In particular, when physical reality combined with your formulation of "ownership" and "contract" leads to direct conflict between the basic civil rights and liberties of different citizens under the law, so that your supposed liberal government cannot govern all its citizens according to its own fundamental principles, you have no recourse.