[adanthar]

This thread got hilariously hijacked, but the response to the first ~20 posts on the first page can be summarized as:

[ QUOTE ]
Alabama, 1967?

I think your scenarios are just a bit flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "oh, the market will even everything out in the long run" line did not get anywhere in the South for over 20 years after the civil rights movement got off the ground.

edit:

[ QUOTE ]
In a scenario where more people would support a racist establishment I think you have to resort to the other argument against the Act that I mentioned. The argument that complete respect of private property is necessary for a free society.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically a copout because it's a purely ideological argument - both undisprovable and patently wrong on its face to all but the most biased observer, once you look a little deeper. "Respect for private property" may well be necessary for a free society. "Complete respect...in a free society" is just a bizarre line used only by hardcore libertarians and ancaps that doesn't really go anywhere, because it overlooks the 'society' part of the 'free society' statement.

Rephrase the question a little. If I'm the only purveyor of canned air on Mars after their dome punctures, and the state forces me into temporary price controls, is the society still free? By ancap standards, it's probably not. However, if it doesn't, and people die because they can't afford to breathe, the result is not actually a 'society'. (Before you start rolling your eyes at the hypothetical, understand that the hypo has nothing to do with the point; it could easily be about food during a famine, or, more apt, a village full of white people with a few black families in the middle.) Like it or not, a society is not a collection of millions of random individuals engaging in an endless loop of wholly rational economic actions; it is, instead, a collection of humans. There is a gigantic difference between the two, and in many cases, the disparity is large enough to make something like the Civil Rights Act a necessity.

"Complete respect for private property" gets us to the same tired "move states if you don't like it" argument that ancaps love to bitch about statists for using. The only difference is that you're asking far more people to move because of sheer prejudice (to say nothing of every other reason) than there are ancaps on the planet.