Men With Guns
by digby
Libertarians are always screaming about government power being enforced by Men With Guns (thus requiring that we arm ourselves to the teeth to fight them.) In light of today’s trip down memory lane to the good old days of American Apartheid and the question of whether it was correct to use the Power Of The State to end centuries of racial discrimination, I find that it’s actually a good illustration of the essential bullshit at the heart of the philosophy.
Before the Greensboro Woolworth sit-in, others had challenged the law in similar fashion. For instance, in Durham North Carolina a famous sit-in took place at an ice cream parlor:
The original sit-in in 1957 was organized by Reverend Douglas Moore, pastor of the Asbury Temple Methodist Church in Durham, seven protesters in total assembled at the church before going to the ice cream shop.
Like many restaurants of the era, the Royal Ice Cream Company had separate entrances and eating areas for white and black patrons. The doorway on the Dowd Street side in Durham had a “White Only” sign and, on Roxboro Street, a sign was marked “Colored Only” says the state archives.
So what happened? Men With Guns, that’s what happened:
The manager of the ice cream store refused to serve the young sit-in participants and they were arrested on trespassing charges by police.
Court documents show that on June 24th, all of the participants were found guilty by a judge on trespassing charges and were fined $10 each plus court costs. They appealed to Superior Court, but lost there as well when an all-white jury rendered a guilty verdict.
The case was appealed all the way to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which upheld the convictions and thereby continued to allow segregated public facilities.
The state historical marker site says that the case was later appealed to the US Supreme Court. The high court refused to hear the case, and on July 15, 1958, the seven protesters paid fines totaling $433.25.
This is where you see what really matters to right wing libertarians and pseudo-libertarians like Papa and Baby Paul. Property rights. That’s what Men With Guns are for — and that’s all they’re for. It’s just fine to call in the jackbooted thugs when they are protecting something you own. When you try to define freedom in more abstract terms than preserving wealth and property, they don’t have any answers except that it doesn’t make “good business sense” to inhibit others’ freedom.
And guess who that benefits? (Hint:the people who own everything.)
.