Woolworth, New York Times, Frederick Douglas discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

What he's saying is that the the essence of the evil he's he's asking was lever evil and he was answering roughly the way I answered it, namely had nothing would picking it had nothing to do with union glue. Nothing to do with. I don't know living in a cabin or nothing to do with singing songs or or any. The key elements flavor was that it violated the law for Association, you. So say. the axiom of nonaggression. That was what was wrong with three of that was what I was telling the New York Times. Those people somehow God from that that I thought that slavery was not so bad, which is, I mean version of, I, you know, I'm not gonna defend the way that the New York Times express your views pants. Ten Sam that I go onto long. That's on that while you're interesting. Oh, I apologize. Continue. Great. Okay. So the the key element of the evil. Slavery was none of these near incidents as Frederick Douglas talks about rather it was coercion. It was the fourth thing people against their will to associate with you when they didn't want. Now let's take wool words and a black person. What works in nineteen? I don't know thirty five or no nineteen thirty nineteen forty, whatever we'll work in the lack person comes in and says, hey, what's the lunch? Or like a hamburger and the guy says, sorry, we don't serve black people. And what I'm saying is that if you compel Woolworth's to associate with the black person in this way, what you're doing if you're violating the rights of rural, this sounds horrible to our modern year. You know, isn't that evil? And my again, I approach this from an economic clinic view and from an ethical point of view from an ethical point of view, it's very clear people should be free to associate with whoever they want. The analogy I use is that if you deny this which are really doing is promoting compulsory bisexuality now sit down, don't interrupt. Let me let me make this point. The problem with male heterosexuals is that they discriminate against half the human race in terms of love partners, bed partners or whatever. Probably female heterosexuals is that they do. They don't go to their females that's politically track to attack heterosexuals. I'm now going to do something politically incorrect. And homosexual males homosexuals. He'll discriminators because they do just against half even raise, namely women and lesbians also are able discriminators because they discriminated against human rights in it's only by satchels who don't discriminate against anyone. So if you're gonna logically, say that nobody should ever discriminate against anyone. What's really calling for is compulsory bisexuality even by sentinels bless their hearts. As we say in the south are either discriminators because they to the -scriminate not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of I dunno, look or sense of humor, or I don't know, intelligence or whatever. Normal people discriminate in favor of so we'll words should discriminate to everyone should be able to discriminate. Everyone does discriminate. I mean, as I say, hetero close all the storm eight. So nothing wrong with this criminal. Now. Now you have actually gone on. But let me let me address this turn. Don't you see there is a difference between an individual sexual preference and a business that is engaging in economic activity and is using all of the resources that society is provide as well as a license to do business. That Woolworth's was a corporation by not in nature. Woolworth's was a corporation because they registered with the state. And so when you say to a black person, you can't go in and eat it Woolworth's or let's use another example. When you say to a black person, you can't come in and and by my goods that you're looking to resell your actually preventing them for from participating in the economy and you are fundamentally hurting their ability to live and even in your lese fair capital world to participate there now. So why is that not problematic to you? I mean. Understand this notion that it's it's slightly different than just associating with would one it is actually about it is actually about allowing someone to participate or not participate in the economy based on their skin..

Coming up next