Good luck trying to convince the people who's careers would be in peril if there were third parties that third parties should be on the ballot. The whole system is rotten to the core.
Why seemingly intelligent people continue to try to deny this is a mystery to me. It's almost like our political system is less a tool and more a religion for some folks.
Yes, frequently. In fact I think they do some sort of drawing for position here. But I have seen it in New York state back in the seventies, too. As I recall Nixon won and McGovern came in a distant second, despite the handicap.
Dafuq does letting people vote how they want have to do with states rights? Honestly, wouldn't it be better to isolate the racists in their own party than let them control one of the majors?
The connection I made dealt solely with the states' rights fetish that a lot of libertarians seem to have. Eliminate that noise and there'd be less of a problem. They'd be controlling two of the three majors, at least ideologically* if the libertarians grew in power and kept up their states' rights fetish. * Rather than getting into who is racist (Can we drop that word? It carries so much baggage that few are willing to own it even when their behavior displays an unwillingness to be part of the solution) in their hearts and who isn't, I'll toss you guys a bone and suggest instead that you guys just have no ********ing idea how many people in each of our fine states would jump at the opportunity to profit from keeping people of color out of their stores, schools, churches and places of recreation and amusement. If you decide to reply, you might first think about looking for links describing a public or private segregationist institution that's willingly changed its way of doing things without any sort of pressure. I can name dozens that required governmental force or pressure from people of color to change, but none that didn't. If segregation is cool with you simply because the institution is private, you can say that, too. Always cool to know who or what I'm dealing with.
I know you are going to ignore me like you always do but if you've any interest in addressing me I would like to discuss the possibility that the proper exertion of federal authority to increase individual liberties 40 years ago has been expanded to oppress more than it has liberated. Can we have that discussion?
I'm all for a western-European style parliamentary system with proportional representation. It will include more voices on all sides but it will also mean that extremists would then have a presence in the system, would see first hand the difficulty in providing effective government and would usually (but not always) become more practical in deed if not always in rhetoric.
Awesome. After 10 years we agree on something. Now how do we start the movement to scrap the constitution?
I'm strugging to understand how a business would actually profit from shutting out a significant percentage of its potential clientele.
Affinity marketing for those who agreed with their policies. As in golf clubs, no women, Jews, and coloreds.
I'll let Auria speak for himself after this, but I think the argument is that the era has passed because political pressures and PC demands have made the era pass. Not because many people don't want and yearn for the way things were done back in the good old days.
Does affinity marketing (where it even exists) outweigh the lost revenue and the "disaffinity marketing" (or whatever the inverse would be called) and boycott effects? Even back in the Jim Crow south, white people were not monolithically in favor of state-enforced segregation, and plenty were vehemently against it.
And that's a good thing which wouldn't change if states were allowed to set their own marijuana laws and drinking ages
Supply and demand, if there is a demand for white only (brown, black only) bars, housing, stores, etc. there will be someone willing to provide the supply, sure big companies will stay out of it because of negative PR but small mom and pops will spring up to do this (also anti gay/ anti say Muslims. etc).
This and this, but lol at the bolded. Marijuana laws would be only one group of laws states would be allowed to set. Any such legislation would be tied in with an overall increase of states' rights. No, you come live here where I can find you and I'll just pack a bowl for you every once in a while. Pretty good quality, too. I'm generous like that. If you had any interest in honest discussion, you likely wouldn't use one Black female being admitted to ANGC as being indicative of the passing of an era. No responsible poster of color would have an extended discussion with you as your idea of freedom jeopardizes what freedom thousands have worked to build for us. Thing is, I'm one of the few people of color who posts here regularly, so it's only me that you see not really entertaining your posts. We'll just have to agree to disagree, MitH, and I hope your brand of freedom never gets enough wind in its sails to force another pile of sit-ins and boycotts to restore my freedom.
Plenty as a percentage or plenty as an isolated number? I take issue a bit with the latter (have doubts about. Link?), but I think we both know the former is what matters in any case and there's no way you can make the claim seriously.
Nobody has argued that southern whites monolithically favored segregation. But as late as 1968, George Wallace won the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. He only lost Tennessee and North Carolina by narrow margins. That should give you a bit of an indicator as to how entrenched many folks were with regard to their "right" to turn away a significant number of their potential clientele.
Exactly. and what's more (I know you know this, but some here might not), Wallace wasn't always a segregationist first and foremost. He had to lose a gubernatorial as a moderate (for Alabama, anyhow) before he got the message loud and clear from his clientele.
You did not tag me there, but I want to be clear we have our share of Progressive minded people here. I don't like Rand and I really liked his Daddy. *shrug* I think my ardent gun rights position and unwillingness to compromise on that single issue makes people think I agree with repubs. I am only libertarian to try and get them on ballots in my state and while people call their views extremist I believe it is misinformation at its most perverse to do so. I think where they stand is already a compromise of the two extremes we get to choose from. My number one issue is govt killing people. That needs a declaration of war or cease and desist. The thing i find most repugnant about both parties position is that it allows for limited warfare, (read palatable.) All the while the interventionism is over resource control and not really a human rights thing or a true threat. The intellectual dishonesty involved in getting to that conclusion are downright offensive to me. I do not see why a sales and use tax could not be made non-regressive by simply exempting food, utilities, and owner occupied residences. Tax everything else whatever it takes to fund gov, and do away with all the different "classes " of "income tax" that prefer one type of labor over another. The drug laws cause more violence and bloodshed than they solve, and our criminal justice system is tragically broken when it has become a "for profit" endeavor. Those are just a few of the really "radical " ideas i think we ought to pursue. I do not think it is so much a case of "cannot" as it is a case of "have not yet." The whole "tea party" thing kind of scared people. The grassroots movement that was the tea party was usurped by the far right of the rep party, and the media just acted like those people represented the grassroots members of the tea party. That was not my experience with the tea party, as most of the people seemed to be disenfranchised republicans, or libertarians who were leaping at a potential vehicle to get some of their views introduced into the public discourse.
Auriaprottu So if I understand the argument you just presented, you are not in favor of states rights because you believe the south would turn to segregation? I hate to share this with you buddy but segregation is alive and doing well. it is simply become more insidious and has begun to cross color lines as more and more previously American middle class families slide into what is considered poverty here. There are many older progressive neighborhoods that houses are sold by word of mouth and never publicly advertised to be sure and find "desirable" owners. I have seen that in the south and in the Midwest of Chicago and northern Indiana. At any rate I do not think libertarians are advocating for all federal power to be ceded to the states. I am just having difficulty understanding how libertarians would advance racism. I am not trying to troll you or anything and you may have me on ignore I just find that position genuinely curious?
Who said the following: "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals."