Defining the noun "Liberal"

They're called "voluntary" white racist communities for a reason, remember? No laws are necessary.

Now it is - after forbidding white racists to exclude black people from whole towns and businesses and the like. Before, it wasn't. For two hundred years, it wasn't.

No, we have learned yet another concept you have only an abstract and fact-free understanding of. Slavery.

They didn't violate the law. There was no law, then, forbidding voluntary white racist communities from excluding black people.

And in order to establish that, various laws forbidding voluntary white racist communities from excluding black people were passed and enforced. That is, after all, a basic principle of liberal government - defending equal civil rights and liberties for all citizens.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If they do not allow blacks to use public property, they violate the law. Not?

So, involuntary work has, in American liberal newspeak, nothing to do with slavery, but is a completely different concept. Fine.

Fine. In this case, it makes sense to interpret the communal property not as public property of the US, but as communal property of the citizens of the town. So, it is the community which decides about allowing or not allowing non-members of the community to use its public property. That means, it is not the job of the US government to decide how to use it, but of that commune. The US government, of course, does not care, and feels free to decide about everything, so to decide that blacks should be allowed was, from point of view of libertarian theory, an act of expropriation of communal property.

This would open another reasonable way to create gated communities - to reclaim the expropriated communal property from the US.

This is close to the main American liberal confusion - one mingles liberties and rights, with the property distribution. You essentially justify confiscating all the communal (that means, privately) owned property, because by making decisions about who is allowed to use it in which way, the state essentially becomes the effective owner of this property. But confiscating private property, to make it public property, is essentially a socialist way to handle problems, and not the liberal one. For classical European liberals, property rights are holy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Being liberal means you're an ultimate badass. (Don't know if everyone can get this.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. Not. Again - you overlook physical reality.

Just as the guy shutting his own door in his own building on your designated cell area has in fact imprisoned you

- the public property you have rights on is in fact a cell, everything immediately around it is his property or the town's property, the nearest public property that is yours, that you paid taxes on and belongs to a community you are a member of, is a road outside of town you cannot actually get to -

just so the whites segregated the blacks in the US, sometimes with legal backing but most often by voluntary racist exclusion enforced as all social customs are enforced.

Of course private and commune and town and county and city and State property in the US is not Federal government property. That's basic law here - always has been.

As far as a government - any level, Federal on down - enforcing black people's rights and liberties in fact on the landscape, so that black people had rights and liberties equal to white people's in physical fact - a liberal principle - interpreting that as "expropriation" by the government is exactly how the slaveowners of the Confederacy put it, exactly how the segregationists of the Reconstruction backlash put it, exactly how George Wallace put it, and Lester Maddox, and the "intellectuals" of the KKK in the US argued their case - that was their argument. Remember when I posted a photo of Lester Maddox for you, so you could get an idea of who was making your arguments in the US and why?

No. Why is the concept of "contractual obligation" with regard to a community so hard for you to understand?
Maybe it's this:

That's not a confusion. That's a clarity. If you ignore the physical landscape and circumstances, your dismissal of government power in defense of liberty enables subjugation and oppression - actual, physical, oppression and subjugation - in physical fact.

 

Sorry, my sentence was written in present time. And you start with some memories of the past. Which are anyway lies, given the very name "sundown towns", which strongly indicates that blacks were allowed to travel through the town during the daylight and not imprisoned.

But it looks like the federal laws (not? Or state laws? whatever) prescribes who is allowed to use this property - a right which is one of the most important ones to the owner. So, de facto it became federal property.

Of course, if a white racist claims 2+2=4, it has to be something different, 5 or 3, but certainly not 4. So, please remember once and for all time: I do not care who has used the argument, if the argument seems correct. BTW, I have not made any claim that such an expropriation would be unjust or so. Feel free to argue that this expropriation was just. I'm even ready to concede that there are situations where expropriation may be reasonably justified, like an extremely unjust distribution created by violence in the past. The point is that expropriation is nothing supported nor by libertarian nor by classical liberal theory, so, once it is supported by American liberalism, we have identified another key difference.

And please learn that classical liberal rights and liberties are something different from property rights. The basic right is equality before the law - no law should make a difference between people based on their race. Property rights are, instead, rights which are given only to the owner of that property, not to all people. And the right to use some particular street is a special sort of property right.

I know, if Hitler said 2+2=4 and I agree with this, I'm arguing fascism.

There is nothing hard to understand. A contractual obligation, if it is not 1984 newspeak, follows from a contract, which is something volitionally signed. Once that Christian fundamentalist does not want to sign contracts with gays, it means he does not have any contractual obligation to serve them. If he has, nonetheless, such an obligation in the US, this is a mild form of slavery.

Of course, libertarians name slavery a lot of things which American liberals and other socialists and fascists prefer to name differently. Live with this. Taxation is slavery, conscription is slavery, and however you name the obligation for Christian fundamentalists to serve gays is slavery too. Because they use slavery to name all forms of involuntary work.

 

Taxation is a necessity in any society: Conscription is a law, albeit undesirable and dependent on the times and situation. The third is simply equality.
Ask yourself Schmelzer, where do politicians come from? then ask where do Libertarians come from?
Extremist definitions make no sense either way.

 

No. There have been enough societies without taxation.

The same holds for slavery. It was also law.

No. But, in some sense you are correct: Societies where all people are equal have to be societies where all people are slaves. Because in a free society different people behave very differently, and there will be a lot of inequality.

I have never cared where politicians come from. Probably from psychiatric clinics, where healing them from sadistic and narcistic disorders has failed. About libertarians I have no hypothesis at all.

 

Just to repeat myself, Extremist definitions make no sense either way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your sentence was written in response to my post, directly quoted by you as the motive, part of a discussion with you.

Voluntary racist white communities in the US denied black people their rights and liberties without either employing or breaking any laws. That is an example of a situation whose existence you have declared to be impossible on theoretical grounds - in the present, or in the past.

No, it doesn't.

Regulation of ownership specifically assigns ownership to someone else, namely the regulated owner. If you make it illegal to shoot somebody, you do not thereby deprive the gun owner of the ownership of their gun.

No expropriation took place, then or now. You are siding with the bad people in claiming that 2+2=5, and using exactly the same reasoning in defense of your error that they used.

Black people who were subjugated and denied their rights and liberties by the impositions of voluntary white racist communities were not physically equal before the law. They could not, for example, obtain a trial by a jury of their own race, in fact. White people could, in fact. Black people could not obtain jobs as police officers, or judges, or lawyers, or other enforcers and guardians and servants of the law, in part because they could not fulfill the duties of such employment given the physical situation. They could not enter into many significant kinds of legal contract, or rely on enforcement of the contracts they did engage, due to physical circumstances created by voluntary white racist communities. And so forth.

Equality before the law is not an abstraction alone - it is a physical situation, as well.

What Hitler said is that 2+2=5, and so it's ok to put Jews in ghettoes. You agreed with the arithmetic, and the argument.

I am well aware of the blind spot ivory tower libertarians tend to have regarding physical reality - I'm the guy who keeps reminding you, remember?

There are libertarians who do include physical fact in their theoretical analyses, and recognize that (for example) your term "involuntary" involves a judgment of fact, not theory. In fact, for example, taxation in at least some parts of the US is arguably voluntary - you choose to live in the community, do this or that, use the local currency and roadways and sewer system, etc, you agree - voluntarily - to pay taxes. If that argument holds, taxation is not automatically slavery - even for libertarians. It depends on the reality involved.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92908&page=1

And to be fair, this is an example of anti-liberal, aka conservative mores. Because it makes rational and sound sense that yelling/screaming at, bizarre harsh punishments and learning no personal responsibility or thinking except fear of authority rehabilitates juveniles or prepares them to be model citizens. Pfft.

What juvenile boot camps are best for are physically obese or lazy teens who could use a good arduous workout who have never had the experience of testing or pushing themselves. That's it.

There is nothing inherently positive about boot camp training which was devised for someone to withstand physical and mental abuse to the point of self-sacrifice. There is nothing normal or constructive about it except in context for wartime hardship. Actually, military training is much the antithesis of civil life and teaches/utilizes psychopathic, antisocial and sociopathic mental training and techniques. This is also why so many veterans have mental and readjustment problems into society. Besides the mental, many veterans physically end up with permanent back and knee injuries.

I just saw the new episode of 'selection' which mimics special ops training and they repeat the same brainwashing that one can push themselves to their limit as if its a good thing. That is not true as there is a price to pay for that and it is eventual physical injury or deterioration from harsh over-exertion. What doesnt kill you does not always make you stronger, you can damage irreversibly or even age yourself faster from extremes for too long. In military context, you need some to think this way or buy into it to be willing to sacrifice themselves. As with most things in life, moderate is best, not extremes.

www.marinecorpstimes.com/articles/marines-find-culture-of-hazing-abuse-at-boot-camp-after-recruits-death-at-parris-island

Even though this was under investigation, it gives you an idea of how the abuse of power and subjugation is normalized in military training.

Those death and labor camps in third world countries guilty of human rights abuses? That is really what military is in essence training you for or to endure psychologically and physically if it came to that. This is where the saying the military uses you and then spits you out came from.

It's also the reason behind the sentiment that veterans should be taken care of for serving and sacrificing for their country because they have whether they served war-time or not. Military training itself is like brainwashing and damaging to some extent. The many homeless veterans arent just because of what they saw in war but how the military utilizes an inhumane and unnatural system of control of its soldiers. They are taught to not think or question but follow rules and structure as well as eschew comfort or own drives. This lends itself to a tendency for a person to become out of touch with oneself, withstand harsher living and directionless once out of the military system. This is also partly why they have a hard time re-integrating back to normal society.

The military is a very right wing organization. It is very much like a fascist dictatorship or oligarchy. Its topdown chain of command and rigidity. North korea is a perfect example of a traditional military state of readiness. I just added this to offer an opposite perspective to defining liberal. Not that the miltary doesnt have its better points or aspects vs civilian life because it has some very good ones that if it were implemented into regular society would improve and clean up a lot of areas such as unemployment, accountability, better management of resources, etc.

 

And which societies would those be exactly?

And your point is...?

Name one society where everyone is equal? There has never been such a society. It goes against the rules of biology. In some societies we may have equal civil rights, but that doesn't mean everyone is equal in skills, wealth, responsibilities, and power.

Two, your notion of slavery is all screwed up.

So you say, but you love Putin who is a fascist war mongering murder. Your beloved Russia has long history of sending dissidents to psychiatric institutions and gulags for re-education or summarily killing them.

 

No. Of course, I know that in the US slavery was legal. Slavery clearly violates libertarian and liberal principles. So, violating libertarian principles without breaking the law is possible. So, if you make such dubious claims about what I have claimed, please only with explicit quote, and with explicit link to the source.

Think again about what I have claimed, by reading the claims, and thinking about them.

Nice example that not every imaginable regulation is an effective expropriation. It does not change the fact that what we have talked about - a regulation which allows everybody to use some private property - was an example of a regulation which is an effective expropriation.

Yes, I'm siding with the bad people. Such is life. If you defend liberal or libertarian principles, you have to side with the bad people if the rights of the bad people are violated. Repeating that I'm wrong does not prove that I'm wrong.
Then, I have not said that there was some formal expropriation. But that deciding who is allowed to use the property is an effective expropriation, because it takes the most important property right - the right to decide who is allowed to use the property - away.

There is no such animal as "being physically equal before the law". Equality before the law is one thing, physical equality is something completely different.

Equality before the law means that the race should not matter in the legal procedures used for the choice of the jury. If the jury is taken from the local population, when a whites only jury may be expected in a location populated by whites, similarly a black jury in a location populated by blacks. Once blacks are a minority in the general population, blacks only juries would be an exception. Even if everything would be completely fair and unprejudiced in these procedures.

Why this? If there would be some legal restriction, which distinguishes black from white, it would violate liberal as well as libertarian principles. If this is an informal problem, simply those who decide about who gets the job are racists, not nice, but, sorry, nobody has the right to obtain a certain job. Just to clarify: If you are black in a predominantly racist white environment, you will be in quite unfavorable conditions. And a liberal law, where the law code forbids explicit racism, removes only a few aspects of these unfavorable conditions. It does not create racial equality or so. And it is not even intended to do this, because it is liberalism, not socialism.

In American liberalism, this is possibly correct. Which makes it essentially different from classical European liberalism.

Nonsensical polemics disposed.

In this case, to name it "taxation" is simply misleading, that's all. If you participate in some community, voluntarily, it is quite typical that you pay some membership contributions or so, I'm not sure what would be the appropriate name. Whatever, even if I'm wrong assuming that taxation means something involuntary, enforced by the state with imprisonment for those who don't pay them, so what, replace "taxation" with "involuntary taxation", big deal.

Almost every non-state society.

Read the text and try to find it out.

The point being? I have not claimed that such societies exist.

Maybe, but nobody cares about your claims, given that you are known to be unable to support your claims.

Stupid polemics disposed.

 

But there was the first word: "employing".

You bounce between, again - when it is employing, you talk about breaking, when it is breaking, you talk about employing - you never confront the complete absence of law in the matter at hand, except to deny the existence of the situation, to assume there is always - by necessity, as a given - a mitigating circumstance or workaround, a metaphorical or even real "ring road".

You by turns deny, avoid, and refuse to discuss, the physical fact that allowing voluntary white racist communities to exclude black people from property available for the use of white people, can - and has, and will, in the US - deny black people equal civil rights and liberties without either employing or breaking any law. This is a specific example - and a revealing one, notice - of a deep and fundamental flaw in your "libertarian" theories, in that they do not account for physical reality. This makes your principles, and your analyses, handy justifications for oppression and tyranny in physical fact; and you have been provided with examples of that as well.

1) No such exaggerated and nonsensical regulation is involved. The regulation being discussed merely forbids the specific and preferential exclusion of people based on race. Almost any other motive for exclusion is permitted, such as "customers only" or "no unaccompanied minors" or "handicapped parking".
2)No, it isn't. Nothing has been expropriated. The assertion that something has is false.

Although it is amusing to see you take shelter in an argument (bogus, but still) of physical fact, which you allege to be an effective counter to the obvious and theoretically decisive absence of a legal transfer of ownership. Apparently your theoretical principles have a gap?

There is such an animal as being physically unequal before the law. Ask some American black people.

Again: in the actual reality of American voluntary white racist communities, despite race not being mentioned in the formal layout of the legal procedures used for the choice of a jury, all white juries composed of racist white people were standard in many regions regardless of the composition of the population. The judge was also white, and racist. So were the lawyers, for both sides. Not only were all black juries, etc, not found, but even partially black juries or individual black judges etc were excluded. That was a consequence of strictly voluntary white racist cooperation.

You cannot allow voluntary white racist cooperation in legal procedures in the US, if you want to have equal rights before the law for black people. Physically.

Including: You will not have civil rights and liberties. Yes. Hold that thought.
Now consider: the environment is the size of a continent, and it only takes a minority of racist whites to establish "predominance" (because they own most of the landscape). Do you see the problem?

Everybody calls it "taxation", in the English speaking world. You can't change the meaning of the word by fiat.

The State is just enforcing a contract, where I'm from - perfectly aligned with your libertarian principles (although the physical reality should be considered, and we do tangle over that a lot here, but that's way outside your range of principles). Nobody is forced to live where they live, or do what they do. They don't like the taxes, they can move - hell, they can leave the country entirely, perfectly free to go. Needn't let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

 

Because we do not discuss here the absence of law, but the properties of liberal/libertarian concepts of law. I do not deny at all that there are situations where there is no law. It is irrelevant for the discussion of the properties of liberal law.

Of course, if there is no law, the whites are free to enslave blacks, if they are strong enough in the military sense. Is there anything to discuss about this triviality? You invent some denial where I see simply nothing worth to be discussed. Why you think liberal or libertarian law theory has to care about what happens in lawless societies is beyond me.

You think it matters if the decisions made by the government about your property are quite restricted? This is a question of principle. The right to exclude is a fundamental, central property right. Once it is no longer present, this is no longer property in the usual libertarian/liberal meaning of the word, but some remains. Once American liberals support such restrictions of property rights, this is yet another difference to classical liberalism.

Where you see a physical fact? I see there only a legal fact. The property right is no longer a full property right, but severely restricted. The only physical point is the question how relevant this restriction of the property rights is. You may think it is completely irrelevant, others may disagree. But so what, even if the degree remains open, the conceptual, theoretical difference remains between classical libertarian/liberal property rights and those remaining rights which exist in American liberalism.

You can, of course, be physical unequal before "the law", once you use "the law" metaphorically for the police officer or the court, who may racists. But this is not before the law in the usual meaning of the phrase, which refers to the law code, which is not allowed to give black and white people different rights by law.

I agree. For "physical equality" before "law" in the metaphorical sense, you need totalitarian law, which forbids racism. Liberal law is unable to reach such totalitarian effects.

Of course. It is never nice if people who hate you own a lot. So, let's rob them. The socialist solution of the problem. Fine. But to name it "liberal" is distorting the meaning of the word "liberal". Which is what is discussed here. Ok, I can live with this, I simply know that American liberalism has nothing to do with classical European liberalism.

This way of reasoning may be appropriate for a small community, not for states of the size of whole continents. Here I start to make a physical difference. The right to live somewhere close to where you have been born and lived during your childhood is more fundamental, it is a fundamental territorial right. So, if the only alternative to "signing" a contract is forced migration, then the contract can hardly considered to be a voluntary one. Here is a problem with the degree of that forced migration - a small gated community would have it too, if some child grown up in this community rejects to accept the statues of the community, it could be forced to leave too (at least this would be one possibility to solve such problems). The father to tells his children "as long as you live in this house" is using, in principle, the same.

Nonetheless, here degree clearly matters, and the small gated community is something very different from a big state. Note that not only the distances matter - it also matters that one, essentially, has to change culture, often even language, if you emigrate out of a state.

 

The absolute right to exclude, without regulation of means and motive and physical circumstance, is incompatible with equal rights for black people (including property rights) in a landscape dominated by white racists.

Equal protection under the law is in fact a right, a stipulated legal right, in the US. It is also a liberal principle. "Under the law", rather than "in the law", normally refers to physical reality - not just the code.

In the US, a black person in many large regions of the country was for a long time (and still is, on occasion) physically denied many of the rights - the legal rights - stipulated in the Constitution of the US. Among the rights denied was the right to a trial by a jury of their peers, the right to confront witnesses against them, the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishments. These legal rights were not systematically denied to white people in that way. So black people were in fact unequal before the law.

No one is talking about a "metaphorical" sense. No one is talking about "forbidding racism". The topic is physical reality - actual possession of civil rights and liberties, in fact.

No robbery is being discussed. Equal civil rights and liberties are being discussed.

(And robbery is normally a capitalist, not socialist, solution. One of the libertarian solutions would be - in severe circumstances such as the one in the US - to kill them, in self defense.)

Now our "libertarian" is defending inherited rights to occupy other people's property and use the products of their labors without their consent.
Ok: apply that logic to the establishment of white racist communities all over the landscape of a continent sized region with a large black population. According to libertarian principles: Do black people have to move, leave their childhood homes and flee as refugees, to obtain the civil rights and liberties the white racists in their neighborhood enjoy for themselves while denying to others?

 

So, you claim that totalitarian law ("regulation of motives" is nothing else) is a necessary part of American liberalism?

Which is, essentially, unavoidable in a liberal society. Because liberal law does not control the motives of the people. People are allowed to believe whatever they choose to believe, even if this is some racist doctrine. And if the policemen and courts believe into nonsensical theories, the results will be fatal, always.

You can, because of this, reject liberalism, and propose a totalitarian society, with complete mind control and punishment for evil (racist) thought crimes. Or some mixture, as actual American liberalism.

Whatever, classical liberal concepts are about the written law. That real law enforcement officers and judges are not ideal neutral persons, following only the written law, but real people with own prejudices, is some unfortunate fact, which nobody denies, but nothing classical liberal or libertarian theories care about.

Not really. What is defended is the right to continue to live where one has lived, without conflict, and therefore with agreement of the people around, before.
In fact, it is quite typical that different principles may appear in conflict with each other. This is a typical case of such a conflict. Nobody asks a baby about his volitional agreement to live with his mom, and about the acceptance of the customs of the community where his mom lives. The child grows up, and at some point it has to be asked about his opinion. And this may be the cause of conflict. Customary law almost everywhere gives, in this case, priority to the family. If the conflict becomes too serious, it is the child which has to leave. But it is a conflict. Because everybody has, as well, a right to continue to live where he lives. And expulsion from the home is everywhere considered as a serious violation of rights.

No, they don't have to leave their homes. But this does not give them the right to expropriate property of the whites. Whatever order these white racists establish inside their homes, or gated communities, is the personal choice of these white racists.

A conflict appears only if one side tries to change the existing property distribution. Or the black side, by enforcing a right to travel through the private property of the racists, or the racists trying to create a whites only community on a territory where some black people live.

Equal rights does not mean equal property and corresponding equal rights to use some property. And, to repeat myself, you may think that the existing property distribution is unjust, based on robbery or so, and has to be changed to create a just society. This is a common motivation for many revolutionary movements, and will always remain. But this is not part of classical liberal or libertarian ideology, but inherent to other ideologies.

Regarding the conflict between the right to reach own property from outside and to leave the own property and the right to forbid other people to travel through the own property there is also a common sense and customary solution, where the first right has priority, but this does not give any arbitrary right to travel through the property of other people, but only the right to use some particular roads - those which have been used before the conflict to reach the property in question. This solution does not require any enforcement of a right to travel through territory previously owned by somebody else.

Such a right to use property of others for travel would appear in other circumstances, like destruction of the previously used roads, say, by war or natural disasters.

 

I nowhere claim the necessity of totalitarian governance of anything - motives or anything else - by any means, legal or otherwise. Your confusion is forgivable in this instance, because I put that word "motives" in a subordinate clause easy to misread - but allow me to clarify: some excluding of some people - the physical act, mind - according to racist motives, must be regulated by liberal government in the US. Not the motive itself, but some of its expression in action, some particular actions taken according to it, must be forbidden. The alternative is abandonment of the liberal principle of equal rights and liberties under the law.

Consideration of physical reality is a necessary component of any "libertarian" theory that wishes to avoid justifying denial of liberty and abrogation of rights in physical fact. And yours lacks that component. So you argue for a government that allows oppression, allows denial of civil liberty and freedom, rather than liberal government - which would defend and protect the governed equally.

You confuse freedom of thought (and expression) with freedom of action. People may believe whatever they like, but not act so as to (actually) deprive their neighbors of civil rights and liberties accordingly, is the liberal stance. Liberal government controls behavior, not thought.

My guess is that part of your confusion is inherent, and common, in failing to distinguish between what people think and say between each other, and what judges and legislators set down as legal findings and structure. These are two different uses of language: when a jury foreman declares the jury's verdict, when a judge speaking from the bench "sentences" you, that is action in the physical world. Such actions are regulated, in liberal government, according to the principle that all governed people have equal rights and liberties under the law. What the foreman or judge is thinking is not regulated.

Well you have a choice: quit talking about governmental enforcement and defense of black people's civil liberties and rights as "expropriation" of white racist's property, or accept that without "expropriation" black people cannot physically possess civil rights and liberties within the boundaries of the United States.

They have to leave, have their government "expropriate" in their defense, or live without freedoms and liberties. That is the physical situation of black people in the US.

Which would solve nothing, in the US. There is no "before the conflict". There is no "own property". There is no "common sense" involved. Prior to the current situation, black people were slaves throughout the Confederacy, and owned no property, and had no rights or liberties at all. They were, by custom, farm animals. There is no such "customary" aspect to any solution to this matter- by US "custom" black people have been (and still are to some extent) denied equal civil rights and liberties across thousands of miles of landscape, by the voluntary cooperation among themselves of white racists.

 

Even if this sounds nice and more or less liberal, this does not change anything, and is not liberal at all. Because even the most totalitarian government is unable to see the motives of people, and, therefore, fights against some actions. Like the action of expressing such motives.

What would be, instead, classical liberal? Actions should be forbidden only because they are harmful for somebody, and in this case should be forbidden equally to everybody, independent of the motives.

Thinking about forbidding something based on motives only, don't forget that it is usually easy to hide them. Except for those who stand honestly and openly for their beliefs. So that such laws have effectively only the consequence of fighting open disagreement with the actual ideology.

As I do, of course. I have explained in some detail that what is ok for a small gated community is not ok for a big state of size of a whole continent. Because of the physical size. I disagree with you, first, because you don't understand the basic principles and connections between liberal/libertarian theory (principles) and reality, and, second, because your justification is insufficient.

No, this is not the point. If you act as a government employee, you are, of course, obliged to follow some sort of contract with the government, which you have voluntarily signed, and which may contain some free speech restrictions and obligations to decide everything in a neutral way. That's unproblematic. But you cannot avoid that even honest racists, even if they try to confirm to their obligations to be neutral, will be really neutral. As well as, on the other side, even when these white racists in government positions would be really neutral, you cannot prevent blacks from believing that they are prejudiced and act (even if this is illegal) intentionally in racist ways.

I think you confuse here liberal liberties and rights with property rights. Of course, there may be property distributions so unjust that a liberal society based on such property distribution is nothing but a dictatorship. say, if the dictator owns everything. In this case, one has to expropriate the dictator to create a society which is not an effective dictatorship. But even in this case one should not name that expropriation a liberal policy, but, instead, name in expropriation.

I have no problem if you claim that in these special circumstances some partial expropriation was justified. But I have a problem if a de facto expropriation is named a liberal policy.

This is an important difference, because even if a one-time expropriation may have been justified, based on special historical circumstances, this would not justify any repetition of this expropriation. Naming it a liberal policy would justify arbitrary variants of similar expropriations in the future, because this is no longer some exception to correct injustice of the past, but a normal liberal policy.

And, then, once corrected, the usual principles of liberal/libertarian theory would remain valid, simply applied now to new distribution of ownership rights, with the blacks being coowners of public roads too. And your argumentation would fail after this, because it depends on the old ownership of communal roads.

 

Since the only thing forbidden is visible action, it doesn't matter.

That's why in the US nobody is allowed to form a gated community of racists, and forbid people of other races to enter - even if they aren't racist themselves.

In the example, and theory, involved, white people own everything, and a large fraction of them are racist.

Yes, it apparently is. The incomprehension revealed in your reply made that clear. You are unaccustomed to considering the difference between ordinary speech that means something, and legal speech that accomplishes an action, does something.

No expropriation is involved. Ownership is regulated, not usurped. The rights of ownership are established, and of course limited thereby.

So racist gated communities would be made illegal by denying exclusive ownership of the community itself, its roads?
Now that would be an expropriation indeed - to have people owning things they did not pay for , do not pay for, don't care about, etc. To have town property owned by distant strangers who have never seen the town, and never will see the town, and don't care how much it costs to fix a pothole or how many potholes there are.

And in addition to being onerous and oppressive governance, it would fail to solve the problem - which is denial of the physical ability to travel, among the other civil rights and liberties denied to black people by white racist communities. Because one also needs gas stations, motel rooms, restrooms - you know, all that stuff. All of it privately owned, in the US. You going to expropriate that too?

And for the fifth or sixth time: the scale involved here is that of the collection of such communities - the landscape covered by them.

 

It matters, because it has to be proven that the bad motive was present. Or else, it is even worse, the end of the state of law, with the courts are free to decide if there was the evil intention, which makes the behavior illegal, or not.

Of course, for a large community it is more difficult to hide its evil intentions. They need a statute, and, ok, this statute should not contain phrases about "whites only". So what? As if it would not be possible to reformulate the "whites only" in a legally acceptable way. http://ilja-schmelzer.de/agora/Zinoviev.php

LOL, is this something you want to use during the next 134 postings to decorate your strawman? I'm no longer simply stupid, but "unaccustomed to considering" some triviality? You cannot do without such personal attacks?

I have never claimed that formal expropriation is involved. So, repeating that there is no formal expropriation, but that the de facto expropriation has the form of regulation, gives you nothing. I know and you know that this part of the ownership rights is very important.

But this is what this sort of "regulation" effectively does. Formally it is "regulation", in reality it is expropriation. In the case of the obligation of motel room owners and so on to serve everybody it is even a weak form of slavery.
Again, feel free to argue that, say in compensation to the slavery of the past, today the whites have to be partial slaves of the blacks, or so.

As long as communities where blacks live remain connected with each other and the outside world, this is no problem at all. Except possibly for some comfort (motels and gasoline).