Do they really think that no other impulse in the world can possibly overcome the juggernaut of human greed?
For most, this is just an economics question. There's a price point for an individuals greed. If racism overcomes greed, then that price point should just be set infinitely high (or, if we wanted a model that could actually be solved, one that is substantially higher than an individuals' lifetime income.)
Removing it a little, I am a Lakers fan and I deplore the Celtics. Absolutely hate them. I would never choose to go to a sports bar in Boston during a Boston-L.A. game because I really wouldn't want to take the jabs or watch Celtics fans get excited about winning. I have a preference for not interacting with Boston fans during a game. Really, if you told me, "We'll pay for your meal and the ride to the sports bar," I wouldn't take it. If you told me, "We'll give you $50," I still wouldn't take it. But, there's definitely a price point at which I'll go - probably around $100.
Different racists have different price points. Some just don't know black people, so they're not found of hanging out with them because of what they've heard. I'm guessing their price point is low. A KKK Grand Imperial Wizard on the other hand, has a lot more riding on his racism. He hates black people and there's social status involved; his price point is VERY high. But this all leads to my next comment....
Marduk wrote:TBC, no business operates on that thin of margins. Unless a market were overwhelmingly opposed to anything that seemed like it was racist, the "market forces" simply would not be capable of forcing the issue. And as an economy grows increasingly global, you don't need to appeal to everyone. There exists a niche market for just about every product and business model that exists. If I opened a store that exclusively sold racist paraphanelia (I'm not even sure what that would be....Hitler posters?) and I only sold to white supremacists, I'm sure I could find enough of a market to make money.
This is true, but those are, as you say, niche markets. If I wanted to buy 100% racist-grown food (food grown only by racists and then transported by racist groups) I would face a serious mark up. Such an industry might survive in the market, appealing to those with racist concerns.
But, I think that confuses the point. It shouldn't be the gov't's business to morally impose on everyone its view of the world - liberals tend to be okay with this when discussing gay rights, but shun away from it on private racism. (I suspect because they view gay rights as morally laudable and racism as morally deplorable. That distinction seems like a very subjective one that is very variable. It also brings to whole issues of bigamy and consensual, adult incest.) If someone wants to be racist, they should be able to. The problem is (1) institutionalized racism (which Ron Paul and libertarians are wholeheartedly against) and (2) private racism that forces individuals out of property, e.g my example of boycotting blacks so they have to move out of a town. (which libertarians are split on). In the case you've given Marduk, no one is being forced out of property by the existence of a racist store. As TBC mentioned, in very competitive markets, profit margins are thin. (Not an independent source, but the Food Marketing Institute lists it at less than 1.46% -
http://www.fmi.org/docs/facts_figs/Comp ... Profit.pdf) If you were to open a store - even in the heart of the South - and tried to exclude a high number of customers based on race, that profit margin would be tough to sustain. (You'd have to increase prices in order to compensate for your lost economies of scale, driving away many of the individuals who have a low price point.) I agree with you that it might be able to stay in business, but I definitely don't think it would become the norm.