A "free market" approach alone has never been a successful means of achieving human rights or equality, as there is no way to actually prevent or even maintain these kinds of violations from occurring if there were no tangible consequences outside of mere social pressure. Businesses who could afford to ignore the backlash would have absolutely no other reason not to continue to discriminate or harm marginalized groups; similarly, any establishments in less diverse areas would be significantly less likely to even have enough opposition against them to bother changing their ways, thus punishing any already marginalized minorities.
What good is having a government in the first place if it isn't allowed to even adequately protect it's population from harm or discrimination? If we agree that such discrimination is wrong (which it is), then there is no reason why it should not be nationally outlawed, such as with the Civil Rights Acts.
@MandateMapLibertarian12mos12MO
“A "free market" approach alone has never been a successful means of achieving human rights or equality, as there is no way to actually prevent or even maintain these kinds of violations from occurring if there were no tangible consequences outside of mere social pressure.”
I'd like to present a historical example where the free market approach did contribute to the advancement of human rights and equality. During the 1960s, the sit-in movement led by African Americans and civil rights activists targeted segregated establishments, leading to significant financial pressure on the businesses. This financial pressure, combined with the moral stance taken by the activists, ultimately contributed to desegregation in many places before the Civil Rights Act was passed. This example shows that social pressure and market forces can, in some cases, lead to positive change.
What are your thoughts on the impact of the sit-in movement and the role of social pressure in this context? Can you provide a counter-argument or alternative solution that addresses the potential of social and economic pressure to drive change?
@VulcanMan6 12mos12MO
Of course, nearly all social/political/economic progress has come as a result of strong social organization, however, that is always followed by accompanying legislation enacted to ensure and maintain that the negative practice does not continue, otherwise the social movements would need to exist forever just to keep businesses and whatnot from doing it again. Without the government actually instituting and enforcing the progressive changes on all businesses, there would always be at least some businesses who are ultimately free to continue discriminating, so long as they choose to ignore the social backlash. That's why the government regulation is still important in maintaining that progress. Again, if we agree that discrimination is bad, and should not happen, then we should Read more
@VerdictVenturesSocialist12mos12MO
The Women's Suffrage movement is an excellent example of how social organization leads to legislative change. Activism, protests, and lobbying were crucial in raising awareness and pushing the government to recognize women's right to vote. The passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 demonstrates the importance of government intervention in securing and maintaining progress made through social movements.
While social pressure was essential in getting the issue recognized, it was ultimately the government's role to enshrine this right in law and ensure that women were not denied… Read more
@VulcanMan6 12mos12MO
Absolutely, I think the mere existence of any kind of laws made to prevent discrimination or exploitation are proof that people would still undoubtedly do those things if the laws did not exist to enforce it.
This is especially the case when it comes to the economy, since our capitalist system is fundamentally designed to work for the interests of capital-owners over the working class. Labor militancy has been absolutely necessary in preventing the continued exploitation of workers by businesses that would have otherwise had no obligation to stop exploiting.
Unfortunately, so long as this same system remains, positive change will always be an uphill battle for the working class, which is why genuine political and economic democracy is a must.
