Right of contract is a fundamental right which all people, of all racial groups should have. It's a violation of constitutional rights not to be able to refuse to do business with someone on any basis you choose, race included. The only exception would be in the case of monopolies. Amtrak, Bell South, utility companies, etc. It's funny that a person can "discriminate" and refuse to serve anyone else on almost any other basis than race. Of course, you'll notice that the vast majority of flash mob violence, is black on white violence. You don't deny that do you?
A this point in time I would agree that the vast majority of mob violence is black on white. When my father was growing up it was completely reverse. It was almost always white on black and was much much more violent then what you have been presenting in those videos. At that time the majority of whites in the South, thought of blacks as timid and cowardly and petrified of white people. These experiences only prove that idiots of every race are capable of extreme acts of criminal violence...but then again I am sure you already knew that. As for the "Right of Contract" argument. I just do not see how that would have prevented that situation in the video. I just do not understand how all those crazed teens upon seeing a sign that read "no blacks or hispanics, only whites and east asians allowed" they would have quietly moved on to do something else. Would the police had been more vigilant and raced to the scene faster if they got a report that a "whites only" business was under siege? Even a "Right of Contract" business would need an effective enforcement mechanism. Maybe I am missing something, but I see the implementation of private discrimination as making racial problems 10 times worse than they are now. Now I will admit that perhaps the reason that I see things that way is because I am a black male. Maybe if I was a white male I would think differently, but as a black man I could never, ever support that step backwards. I also suspect that if it was implemented, even you would not be happy with the outcome, because it would not go far enough to solve the problems that you consistently point out. Do you bring up this "Right of Contract" argument at the Tea Party meetings that you attend? Does that idea have a lot of support among the attendees? Have they given any consideration to making "Right of Contract" one of the central ideas in their platform? I could see where promoting that idea could gain them a lot of support from conservative whites. Maybe you are on to a future campaign issue for republicans and the tea party?
It would be pretty funny. Instead of having a camera in the store you have a barrel of a gun sticking out of the wall with a big sign, hmnnn.. "cap in yo ass". Ahhh forget it, people can't read.
HuH? I don't recall a lot of violence where I am from in the 60's. The only problems were related to some civil rights issues that were resolved when the act was passed. I can see where Detroit would be a problem, and they always blame the South.lol. In fact, that is probably where some of the shitstarters and troublemakers came from to cause problems in the South. All this guilty whitey crap is for the birds, just a good reason for someone to start trouble.
I'd never claim that any race or ethnic group has a monopoly on violence. When your father was growing up, mob violence wasn't nearly as common as it is now. Violent crime altogether was far more rare, much less rabid mob violence. The mob violence then was nowhere near the scale on which it happens now. If your dad told you so, he's full of shit. Also, if your dad told you that whites in the south thought of blacks as "timid and cowardly", he was full of shit on that as well. Black people had always been thought of as dull, wild/savage, chaotic, and unpredictable in the south. Not as "timid and cowardly". If your dad told you that, he's making shit up. LOL! Are you saying that those mean, evil white people just went around harassing the poor, simple, timid, country black folks who never caused any harm and left everyone alone just for amusement, just to pass the time? White people were SCARED of black people in the old south. People organized to keep blacks out of their cities, and away from their communities because they were AFRAID of them, not because they wanted to find someone to be mean to, and decided they'd pick on these black people, because they were so scared and timid so they'd be easy targets. I'm not saying that blacks were not oppressed and mistreated, certainly they were, but your dad's rendition is far from accurate. I don't doubt that blacks are more psychopathic now than they were then however. This "integration" garbage, along with giving blacks the message that something is "wrong" with them if they don't have social outcomes identical to white, and don't successfully mimic white people in every area of their life certainly hasn't been healthy and has probably served to develop some pathological characteristics within the black community, which were not previously present or at least to a much lesser degree. Do you know how many lynchings of blacks were committed (mostly by the KKK) from after the civil war ALL THE WAY until the civil rights act was implemented? About 2500. Do you know how many blacks die PER YEAR from black on black violence in America? About 22000. Blacks today kill each other at a rate many multiples higher than any rate the KKK could have ever hoped to.... Do you know how many whites die in America per year from black on white violence? Also about bout 22000. The interracial violence we have today, the overwhelming majority of which is one way (inflicted upon whites by minorities), is dramatically higher than any previous era. Blacks are statistically 50 TIMES more likely to attack, rape, or murder a white than vice versa. Surely you can be honest enough to admit that if the seats were switched here, you'd be very concerned, and you'd fell well within your right to say something about it, and would not ignore the racial element of it, and I wouldn't blame you one bit. The right to contract could have allowed the clerk to call and have them all removed as soon as they stepped on the property. They would have never made it to the store. The door would have been shut and locked before they got there. Maybe it would not have prevented it, but there's definitely a good chance it could have. Also, if it were established that you can't go to someone's establishment for any reason they tell you that you can't, and people were used to the fact that if someone tells you to leave their establishment and you don't that the authorities come, and you get your ass tossed out, and that were an established social norm, that would likely prevent a lot of these incidents in the first place. Would the police get there quicker because it was a "whites only" business? I don't know, I'd hope that the police would get there quickly in any situation, whether it was a black business owner who wanted whites to leave his establishment or whites wanting to evict black patrons. I'm not suggesting that freedom of contract should only be afforded to caucasians, you know that right? Right of contract already has an effective enforcement mechanism. People have security guards at clubs who kick out rowdy patrons, if someone wont leave a store who's yelling and knocking shit over, they call the police, if anyone wants, for any reason, not to do business with a given person that's fine, so long as that decision is not on the basis of race/ethnicity. There already is an enforcement mechanism which, generally speaking, works pretty well. Nothing new is needed. If it ends up creating a need for more security for people to be free to make their own decisions, so be it. We can take the police who are doing stupid shit like tracking down, locking up, and prosecuting non violent drug offenders, or people who haven't paid fines or child support, and put them to work defending people's freedom. I'm not talking about the "implementation of private discrimination". No one HAS do discriminate on the basis of race if they don't want to do so. They are just free to make their own business decisions and choose to do business with whomever they want, for whatever reason they want, which is a freedom everyone is entitled to, from every race and ethnicity. You act as if I'm saying that racial discrimination ought to be mandatory for private businesses, which is simply a misrepresentation of what I've said. I'm not talking about the "implementation of private discrimination", we already have private discrimination. People "discriminate" all the time. Whenever minorities move into a neighborhood, whites usually abandon it. People spend small fortunes so their children can go to schools with other white children. Most black people who go to church go to churches which are 90+% black. Since some portion of the black community has achieved upper middle class income, we've seen nice black suburbs emerge, and generally if a black family manages to starts prospering, that's where they move. Hispanics usually live in hispanic enclaves, go to specialty stores which have spanish speaking staff, signs and information in spanish, and sell latin american products. They often go to hispanic bars/nighclubs, and live in areas with other hispanics. Before there were hardly any nicer black suburbs it was a well known phenomenon that when black people became successful that they would still stay 'in the hood', which was just so baffling to many PC white commentators. It made perfect sense to me. They're black. They identify and relate most to other black people. They are most comfortable around other black people. They want to live somewhere that they feel comfortable, and that they identify with. They want to live in a community which reflects their culture, identity, and values. Money or no money, they didn't want to go live somewhere where they were the only black household in an alien environment, which would be so awkward that it would be miserable no matter how nice the house was. I also would not conclude that this means that they hate white people, or that it makes them "racist", as many other white people would not. Yet, if a white person expresses the same sentiment, then we're pointing and yelling the R-word, with torches and pitch forks. It's only white people who would be attacked as "racist" for openly saying that they would prefer that other white people move in their neighborhood, that they'd rather hispanic and black households not move in. Is that "equal rights"?
If you want to reduce racial problems, then allow people to be as segregataed or as integrated as they so choose. That's what will reduce tension, not trying to force integration, so that people who do not want to do business with or be around one another are forced to. What kind of logic is that? "I know how we can get these groups of people who don't want to be around each other get along, FORCE THEM TO BE IN THE SAME PLACE, and make them HAVE to do business with each other and hire each other, even with they don't want to!!!" WTF? People being able to be free to associate with and do business with whom they want is not going to make racial problems worse, these forced integration measures make things worse. Did your dad tell you about how most of the black kids did not WANT to go to the white school across town? How they wanted to stay in their schools, with their friends, in their neighborhoods? More importantly, what in our constitution guarantees any one any right to eat in a particular restaurant, shop at a particular store, or live in a particular apartment building? What in our constitution holds that the government gets to dictate to business owners who they must serve and on what basis? That's the real issue here. The notion that forcing people to be among and do business with people they don't want to will somehow improve race relations is just absurd. The notion that restoring peoples' freedom would represent a "step backwards" is also absurd. My guess is that most businesses would not practice it. However, the ones who had a need to practice it, would be able to. My guess is that you might see some places, like gas stations or liquor stores, which did not allow certain groups after dark, etc. I'm sure there would be your occasional bar, night club, or hotel. I'm sure some apartment building owners would only lend to certain groups. My guess is that it wouldn't be extremely wide spread though. However, I would be happy with the outcome. I'd be happy that some level of freedom had been restored. That is it's own reward regardless of outcomes. I also believe that it would reduce racial tension, as a look at almost any given society confirms. The Tea Party?? LOL! Are you joking? They are more desperate to prove how "un racist" they are than anyone else in the nation. They are all scared shitless of being called the "r word". They would not entertain anything like that for a moment. It's mostly economics and budget, foreign policy, etc. About as "racial" as you can get there is illegal immigration, and even then they feel the need to say "it's not because they are hispanic people, it's because they're illegal, we wouldn't care if they were illegals from Denmark, etc" like some sort of chorus every couple of sentences. Half the conversation becomes about how non racist they are rather than about the immigration problem. You might be interested in this article, written by a black woman, lambasting that element of it; their desperate attempts to demonstrate how "non racist" they are. The MSM did a good job of using the R-Word to intimidate the tea party into submission, they have the tea party on their toes, so scared of being called racist, that they are now too preoccupied with proving to the world how non racist that they are, that they can't be very productive. She called it "The Carnival of Repentance" : http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/carnival-of-repentance/