Would you have signed the Civil Rights Act of '64 had you been a senator at the time?
I would have signed it if they eliminated Title II and Title VII because I view property rights with great importance and each of those sections violates property rights.
I'd also like to say yes, but if I was in that position my upbringing and social conditioning would be hugely different. I'd like to think I would be enlightened enough to vote yes, but I can't guarantee that.
May I ask why?
I just indicated you can ask
Do you have the decency to answer?
Not literally in 1964 (the year I graduated from high school) because I didn't know crap then. But by '65-'66, I certainly would have, after I learned more about what was going on in the country.
This issue is one of the few that drew me away from the libertarian party.
In what way?
In the way that they oppose it.
Do you have a solid & accurate understanding of why Libertarians oppose it? I ask because so many people think it's about race when it has nothing to do with race, but with property.
Property? I've many arguments, but none based on property come to mind.
Hmm, interesting. That should be the only argument you hear, unless you're talking to self identified Libertarians who don't truly have a solid understanding of libertarian philosophy & why it's actually opposed by libertarians.I don't have the space
here to do an explanation justice, so I found an article that explains it well on what appears to be a Canadian site of all things. Anyway, here it is: mises.ca/posts/blog/the-libertarian-case-against-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/
Yeah, I've totally heard that argument, just never in terms of property, mostly in terms of the gov't compelling the private sector to serve everyone. We are much better off with the CRA in place.
NP. I'm cool w/people disagreeing w/the property rights argument. I just don't like when people think the Libertarian argument is about race or that Libertarians have an issue w/the entirety of the CRA, when it's only 2 sections that are opposed.