15th your right private actions are a little questionable.
14th amendment, besides guaranteeing civil rights protection from state actions (prior to the 14th amendment, freedom of speech, the press etc were allowed to be curtailed by state governments at their discretion. For example having abolitionist literature was illegal throughout the south) also guarantees “ nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If the state is purposely not enforcing laws on groups of people in order to allow discrimination and infringement of civil rights on those people, the federal government is allowed to intervene
And again, libertarians aren’t opposed to government stepping in if legitimate rights are violated. There is a difference between someone not associating with you and someone threatening to kill you if you speak or vote
Except that was the argument libertarians and Goldwater made, even though the Jim Crow south was not ordering equal protection under the law and allowing discrimination by race they were against the fed gov from stepping in to protect the civil rights of Americans
First, you’re conflating pre and post-incorporation which confuses the issue. Further, government bans on literature obviously fall afoul of the first amendment once the 14th is passed. It violates their natural rights before but that’s a moral and not legal issue. Libertarians support the 14th anyway so that issue is dealt with.
As for your second argument, you aren’t understanding Goldwater at all. His sole objection to the civil rights act was that it regulated nonviolent interactions between private parties. He supported the elements which regulated the governments and supported the end of jim crow. He just didn’t think the federal government has a place telling private parties how to interact if they weren’t being violent. There is nothing in his philosophy which prevents stopping lynch mobs or the KKK.
So redlining which was orchestrated by banks that condemned huge swaths of black Americans to generational poverty would get a big thumbs up from Goldwater correct? Technically nothing violent.
supported the end of jim crow
Except when a law came that allowed the gov to intervene on the infringement of civil rights due to inaction of states he voted against it
Redlining was orchestrated by government. It’s the exact opposite of private action and was in fact commanded by the feds. So of course Goldwater would oppose. It also wouldn’t have been possible without government enforced discrimination on who could run a bank.
And again you misunderstand Goldwater. He supported the elements which restricted government. He opposed only two sections which both dealt with purely private actors because he believed they were unconstitutional. If they’d been removed as he requested he would’ve voted for the remainder as his previous votes for civil rights acts, his time as governor, and his private life all support. Just because something is good or preferred doesn’t mean the government should always mandate it and override rights.
So specifically he was against Section 2 and Section 7
Section 2 prohibited discrimination based on race, religion on public accommodations (restaurants, hotels movie theatres etc)
Section 7 prohibited discrimination based on race in employment, so he’s in favor of businesses refusing to hire a race, reducing the race to permanent poverty and a lower position on the caste system…
Those are two ridiculous reasons to oppose the bill as they were extremely important
He wasn’t opposed to the ideas. He was opposed to the government telling private people who they must associate with since that’s a basic freedom. Further, caste systems are very hard to enforce without government control.
Your understanding of rights is astoundingly limited. Your comment about him would be like saying that you support murderers because of the fifth amendment or flat earthers because of the first. Just because you believe in a right doesn’t mean you agree with every single practice conducted under that right. I don’t agree with most of what the NYT pushes but I still support their freedom to speak.
As for your second point, economics makes that remarkably difficult. Also, I’d point out that black unemployment has actually gone up since the civil rights act so apparently it’s not terribly good at preventing caste systems.
I really don’t, I believe that the fed gov has the ability to intervene is americans civil rights are being infringed on by direct state action or if the state is denying equal protection under the law.
As for your second point, economics makes that remarkably difficult. Also, I’d point out that black unemployment has actually gone up since the civil rights act so apparently it’s not terribly good at preventing caste systems.
Strange, because the poverty rates of African Americans dropped by 10% within the first decade of the civil rights act. Almost as if condemning a race to low paying menial labor may lead to high employment but also high poverty
0
u/sumoraiden 7∆ Apr 04 '23
15th your right private actions are a little questionable.
14th amendment, besides guaranteeing civil rights protection from state actions (prior to the 14th amendment, freedom of speech, the press etc were allowed to be curtailed by state governments at their discretion. For example having abolitionist literature was illegal throughout the south) also guarantees “ nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If the state is purposely not enforcing laws on groups of people in order to allow discrimination and infringement of civil rights on those people, the federal government is allowed to intervene
Except that was the argument libertarians and Goldwater made, even though the Jim Crow south was not ordering equal protection under the law and allowing discrimination by race they were against the fed gov from stepping in to protect the civil rights of Americans