The pessimistic part of me agrees, but the optimistic part sees all that is done completely in spite of an authoritarian system and I become, as usual, conflicted.
Which means you also oppose the Voting Rights Act, right. So the argument that libertarianism is in favor of blacks and hispanics is silly.
I was at the beach this weekend and the dipshits next to us brought a goddamned PA system to play their shitty music. I would have loved to watch the brownshirts roll in and put a cap in the father and send the rest of the family to a re-education camp until they were capable of operating in polite society.
It seems reasonable enough. We're at a point technologically now that it's reasonable to force the world populace into an advanced pastoral/agrarian existence. With the direction the environment is heading, it might just save us.
You don't understand. Without government interference, the invisible hand of the marketplace would gently guide them to their appropriate station in life; and by definition that would be better for them than this artificial and unsustainable affluence and influence which paternalism is forcing on them...
Remember when the "free market" allowed the buying and selling of slaves? Damn shame governments put a limit on that one.
One must understand the difference between the Voting Rights Act, and the rights of a person who owns a store etc etc. I dont think a Libertarians would have any problem with the Voting Rights Act. You take away rights of a person to vote you are clearly impeading somebodies civil liberties. In fact, your making my case for anarchism here in that aspect....no leaders ? Who would the be to vote for ? would be no reason to worry about voting. Also, lets not act like the federal government actually cares about rights when we all know the black panther party was hanging out in front of voting buildings with clubs ( I believe that was in Philly). Clearly that is a violation of the law and the federal government didn't ivestigate that. When somebody owns a store and they have a right to do what they will. Who should enter and who should not. It is not a right for a person to just enter a store and buy things. The only reason I and others are allowed to go into a store is because the owner allow us and also because the Federal Government believes it is okay for them to make a law "forcing" owners of a store to allow people to come in. Now, lets say if a person owns a store and he says only white's or black's whatever it may be...either way can't come in. That is thier right to do that. It is not my right to come in if he does not want me to come in. I would find it repulsive and nasty. But that is my opinion. Now, given as I said before how quick an uproar comes when racism like this exist (example being Paula Deen) I dont think this person's store would last long. That is what we mean by letting the free market handle this. I believe there is plenty of people within the U.S. and local communities who would have a problem with this and they would boycott it and the person would make hardly any money and he or she would just run thier store into the ground. Many people want ot use the argument that "Well in the South this would happen and the stores would not die and racism would run rampant". Well, most people who says this probably have never been in the south or know southern people all that much anyway. In fact, I think a situation like this, in this day in age would turn out like I explained earlier. The store would not exist anymore because people would not boycott it and that would be the end of it. One would have to be so stupid to be so racist as to not allow somebody to come in. Its a bad move as far as making money goes and well you make yourself look bad. Is there racism still around ? Yeah. It will never end. But if somebody is looking to make money it would be wise to not allow racism to effect your business. I think many people know this. Point being. There is no need for the Feds to have any need to get into things like this. Besides, as I pointed out earlier they dont have a good track record of obeying thier own laws. More violations of those anti discrimination laws can be pointed out (ex. Muslims). If you can't understand this simple and easy explanation. Then you have no hope of understanding Libertarianism. I think it would be proper to say that you think the Feds need to be everywhere to make sure nothing happens and to govern everything in our lives. Which it seems that maybe some in here think so. We all know how that turned out. I have to say, it gets old talking to people who just cant simply understand these basic principal's of Libertarianism. I mean it doesn't take a genious to figure it out. Liberals and Conservatives making life diffcult. Debt, War, Force, Theft.
No, actually. Government allowed that. Read history please. Slavery and the trade of Slaves was made law by Government. Also it was Government who allowed black people not to come into certian states or they would be whipped. Get an education.
TLDR - you're opposed to federal anti-discrimination laws. In short; libertarians are not always in favor of hispanic and black rights. Kthnx.
Sure, if you want to keep telling yourself that. In order of make yourself believe that it has to be federal haha.
actually false. If your speaking of Native America tribes who dealt with slavery. They have a system of government that was invovled with thier economy. Was it huge ? Nope. But it was government regulating slavery into the economy. Same with the Spanish colonies in Americas, English and then the U.S..
And if that's what you want to think. Sure. But you should know that people around the world sure would laugh at you for thinking the Government had no hand in regulating slavery in the U.S., flying that flag over them ships to go get those slaves and bring them back here. Also, educated people are not foooled by those laws that existed in the North that were against black people and have been since the 1960's by the government. Segergation in military anybody ? sheesh. pathetic. I am done here.
That doesn't even make sense. The purchase of slaves pre-existed any laws. No one writes laws for things that don't yet exist. Laws are written to regulate things that already exist.
Slavery arose before regulations. It's downright insane (though that would fit with your posts) to argue that the government is to blame for slavery because it passed laws to regulate slaver after it already existed.
Hooray! One poster has apparently managed to bring out all the usual caricatures and strawmen all in the space of a page or two. Great job, dick. With friends like anarchism_now2013, libertarians don't really need enemies.
I don't know why you're condemning his entire posting history here instead of arguing against those parts of his post that are not part of any libertarian presidential candidate's policy. I've had other libertarians on this forum say the same thing to me that I quoted from anachronism_now1877. And I've had other libertarians offline say the same as well. To my face. Tell me why I should think of them as something other than libertarian when they've told me that that's what they are. Oh, and it doesn't matter if dude was trolling or not. If states' rights is part of your platform, it may as well be your entire platform.
Then it makes you look like you've something to hide. Could it be that most of his post is on the money, but you're dismissing him because he's a newbie troll whose poor writing casts libertarian ideology in the harshest light? Well, someone else might see your post and have a change of mind. Who knows? But I would like to know why you're dismissing my concern. Singular. I've told you the problem is states' rights. You're not willing to address that one thing to possibly get my support, and you're using a sentence like "(My) mind is made up" like it's a bad thing. My fairly consistent Democratic voting record is because the GOP falls to the right of them on matters that might involve race, not because they're ideal. What is it about constitutional freedoms for states that's supposed to appeal to me when the result allows others the freedom to discriminate against me more than they do now? Help me understand why I ought to help you strive to recreate that kind of America.
For ********'s sake... I didn't read most of his post(s), just the reaction to it, where all the greatest caricatures came out to play. Maybe. Sometimes, I respond pretty much on that theory. I didn't feel like fisking it last night and preferred to actually sleep. You are particularly intransigent when it comes to discussions on this, so I am cutting my losses. I don't give a ******** about the GOP. They're terrible on most everything, and flat-out stupid on race.