"But they also opposed the laws codifying segregation. "

Prove it.

"You're right, private businesses did oppose the civil rights acts."

Not just oppose, but got them overturned. They also lobbied for legal protection from their segregated services, via the Jim Crow laws. We have Jim Crow because private enterprise wanted it.

"Putin, again, there's a big difference between between a law requiring racial segregation and a law requiring equal accommodation."

What's your point? That libertarians were perfectly willing to protect and defend segregate by private enterprise, under the pretense that the feds had no authority to protect people from this kind of discrimination? What is the moral worth of an ideology that is willing to make every possible legal argument they can think of to defend discrimination by private enterprise? Why do you think that's justifiable?

The excuse is always that these people privately disaproved of these practices, which is nonsense. They did not. But even if that were the case, how is morally defensible to make it easier for these practices to exist and to empower private enterprise to engage in them?

" I like the example of Barry Goldwater for our earlier discussion: he was personally not racist, supporting the NAACP and desegregation in Arizona, but also thought that the Civil Rights Act went too far. A libertarian is against expanding government power, that's it."

So then why are you even arguing with me here? You even acknowledge Goldwater fought in defense of segregation and opposed federal laws striking it down. You acknowledge that libertarians oppose the 'expansion of federal power' even and especially when that power aims to protect excluded classes of people from the tyranny of their state governments. It's pretty hard to sit here and listen to somehow claim that Barry Goldwater, the architect of the 'southern strategy', was not a racist. The guy who had nothing but praise for white supremacist leaders like Ian Smith in Rhodesia. Indeed Goldwater represented such a threat that MLK disavowed his former policy of not endorsing candidates to denounce the Republican nomination of him.

"Life's too short. I haven't had time to start a game in a while on account of finals"

Good riddance. One less stool pigeon to worry about.

Putin could you give some sources that present evidence that private enterprise was involved? I ask this because I am curious to read them for myself. I looked but could not find any. Most of what I read pins it on white southern democrats after reconstruction and the intimidation tactics used to retake state gov'ts. As for the 1883 supreme court case I found nothing that would indicate private enterprise was involved in swaying the court. I am not asking this because I have an opinion one way or another I would simply like to gain greater confirmation of what really happened.

"But even if that were the case, how is morally defensible to make it easier for these practices to exist and to empower private enterprise to engage in them?"

Because - and I know you don't actually care for this argument, but here goes - the ability of individuals to contract freely matters. A business should not be forced to enter a contract with anyone against its wishes. Yes, this enables morally defunct and financially irrational businesses not to contract with blacks because of their race, or anyone else, for that matter. But just as people in a free society are allowed to say whatever deplorable things they want, people in a free market are allowed to contract - or not to contract - with people for whatever deplorable reasons they want.

That all said, I would expect that most libertarians would hold that the 1964 CRA was probably still justifiable given the political, social and economic situations of the time. I know from my own experience with libertarians that most of them hold this position. The greater good established by the CRA in fighting discrimination in general certainly outweighed the relatively marginal bad of this private enterprise segment. And no libertarian politician would waste his or her time on that provision when there are so many more consequential policy areas to handle. The fact that it even gets brought up is because Rachel Maddow went to make an issue about it with Rand Paul back in 2010.

To my knowledge, the only policy issues related to race that libertarians fight are the War on Drugs and death penalty... and on both issues they take the pro-minority side (ending the WoD, which disproportionately imprisons and punishes minorities, and ending the death penalty, which disproportionately executes minorities). While it's true that the usual libertarian arguments on both policies aren't explicitly related to minorities, we usually tend to agree with the arguments from the minority perspectives and incorporate them into the general debate. And most broadly of all, looking at people strictly as individuals, and giving rights to all individuals equally, by default means fighting for minorities who are disadvantaged, because by nature of being disadvantaged those minorities are not being granted the equal rights they deserve. I guarantee you that not a single libertarian cares enough about the '64 CRA to make it a relevant policy issue. You're barking up the wrong tree.

How can anyone associated with higher education claim to be a libertarian? There is no more massive, corrupt, or onerous expansion of government than the 2012 higher education system in the United States. It must waste at a minimum 50% of its funding, and even worse its graduates now are saddled with debt their entire lives.
This isn't new either.
17% of all past due student loans are owned by people over 60.
They accumulated that debt in the 1970's for goodness sake.

Cut all the subsidies for higher education.
Let professors try to charge private individuals what they charge the state.
They would be lynched.
The benefits, pensions, and wages paid to professors of Art History, Medieval Poetry, American Studies, Women's Studies, and all the other bloated departments that emerged with government funding need to be exposed for what they are, leeches on the body politic.
People will pay for science, mathematics, accounting, law, and other practical degrees.

True libertarians would end the obscene levels of government transfer of wealth from the working class to the ivory tower as rapidly as possible.

From what I have read here the term true libertarians is not really applicable as there are many different types of libertarians that disagree on a number of issues. I believe this has been addressed several times. The other thing is the use of the designation "true" or "real" especially when tied to ideologies of any kind. This happens all the time and I know I have done it myself. What makes it true? Because it's mine? Because that's what the first man/woman said it was. Because it follows a particular trajectory,so to speak, of thought? Because the most people say it is? Which one of those reasons is so compelling that in conveys more value, more validity? It's not true in the same sense as 1+1=2 or all planets in our solar system are round. And yet we slap that label on many of the things that are most important to us. In fact it seems as if the use of designation true is directly proportional to the amount of controversy involved. Strange when you consider general consensus is a given in, say, math or science.

is considered a requirement......sry forgot that part....

Oh shit!

Think I'll move on from you idiots beating yourselves up.

"What is the moral worth of an ideology that is willing to make every possible legal argument they can think of to defend discrimination by private enterprise?"

President Eden made the moral case against the government banning private discrimination; I will make a slightly more practical one. There are lots of things in the world that are bad or immoral (however you want to define that): cocaine addiction, prostitution, adultery, misogynistic films and music, alcoholism, racism, not giving money to charity, and so on. We can clearly see in many of these cases (like laws against drug possession and prostitution) that using the force of law to stamp out these things has been, on the whole, a net negative. The harms from outlawing these things have been or would be worse than the harms that they create. It's easy to believe that the harms resulting from outlawing private discrimination could be worse than the discrimination itself. It probably wasn't in the 1960s, but it probably would be now.

""But they also opposed the laws codifying segregation. "

Prove it."

I provided an example, remember? Plessy v Ferguson? The railway companies opposed the law because of the expense, and they supported Homer Plessy's case.

The larger point you're missing is that, historically, the most important forms of racial oppression have resulted from the oppressive actions of the government or from the misapplication of the proper role of government. Slavery in the USA simply could not have existed without both state and federal legal protection. Segregation existed because state and federal governments introduced laws codifying it. It's only been in the last forty years or so that you can even meaningfully separate the harms of racism and racial oppression from the abuse of government authority. The problem has been government, so you should understand why people don't find it convincing that making the government even stronger is the best answer.

"You acknowledge that libertarians oppose the 'expansion of federal power' even and especially when that power aims to protect excluded classes of people from the tyranny of their state governments."

Not entirely true. Banning private discrimination is a separate thing. I think almost any libertarian would favor federal action that struck down racially discriminatory state laws, however. For example, I can't think of any significant libertarian objections to the 1965 Voting Rights Act off the top of my head. Currently, the Libertarian Party is opposed to state drug laws, which have an obvious racial element. I imagine there would be more of a split among libertarians on the recent state immigration laws like in Arizona and Alabama, but I think a solid majority of libertarians oppose them.

Also, again, Goldwater personally favored civil rights, and as a city council member, he supported local civil rights ordinances. But he didn't want the federal government involved, and he was extremely suspicious of using government power to promote social goals. If you don't understand that difference, I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.

As an aside, you're much overstating the impact of communism on social change in the USA.

Buncha bampots!

Go run for Congress or President or whatever. Just please f*ing run. Anywhere. Just run.

Doesn't sound too libertarian, does it? Well. actually. life doesn't really work in a libertarian way. Next post will ask you a question.

Can you please define the term 'libertarian' as you, I assume a professed libertarian, see it?

A libertarian, generally, is a person who favors a reduction of government power, with an emphasis on individual liberty. Another way to put it might be that a libertarian adheres to the non-aggression principle or non-initiation of force, believing that the only legitimate use of force or the threat of force (and actions backed by force or the threat of force) is to protect oneself or others from violence.

Cool, except the people who are going to push you down and keep you down spreadeagled on the ground are those who use the very same argument.
The only legitimate use of force or the threat of force (and actions backed by force or the threat of force) is to protect oneself or others from violence.
Yeah.

I hate to bust up your party, Mr Roberts, but that's absolute shite.Ever tried living in the world?

I am not quite sure what you mean (or where you think I live). Are you advocating pre emptive violence?

A libertarian would use fees to pay for services instead of taxation. If you used a service you would pay for it. If you didn't use a service you wouldn't.
Thus higher education in this country is not libertarian.