posted
Honestly, while I see the "My principles are against the Civil Rights Act" as something that people are going to get angry and upset about, it's pretty much true, without necessarily being based on racism.
There's a line people need to draw on where government interference in private enterprise is acceptable. Extreme libertarians draw in at (no surprise) an extreme point. Government should be there to enforce contracts and punish fraud. That's it. Ensuring that a private business is not discriminating against protected classes is on the other side of this line. I don't agree with this and I think that extreme libertarians live in a fantasy world where the horrible things that would happen if what they want actually occurred don't exist, but it is true that their principles are in opposition to the CRA and ADA.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Equally, it doesn't need to be based on racism to be unacceptable to a voter. I recognize that politics is such that "He's against the Civil Rights Act" is just going to become a shorthand, probably with attached insinuations. But at the same time, it's not unreasonable to oppose someone who's against something you think was positive, even if it isn't for what one might think the "standard" reasons.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MALANTHROP HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, PART THE XVIIth
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Go ahead and watch. I'll ask you one simple question....is there a man only gym?
Yes. have you heard of "google?" It may be able to help you find such a thing!
quote:I can't site the dotted decimal code of your law.
Yeah. I know. And you can't even find one. Which means that you're admitting that even though you were going to state the existence of such a law as a given, you had no personal knowledge of such a law. In short, you're making things up, because you expect them to be true. You're wrong, you fail.
Find the law, or you fail again.
quote:Shape's will lose, if a man decided to sue them.
Yeah, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
quote:Some men have complained that female-only workout facilities violate laws prohibiting gender discrimination.
A few have even sued, though most have been turned away by the courts. One Wisconsin man's lawsuit against Curves prompted the state to pass a law exempting single-sex fitness centers from the state's discrimination laws.
quote:From the Rabbt: The diner protests of the 60's were important Black Owned restaurants were kept out of whole sections of town (not by law, but by Libertarian Approved Red Lining practices of private Real Estate agents).
I'd only add that Redlining began, or at least, was most heavily used early on, by the government. The FHA was possibly the single greatest contributor to housing segregation because of their redlining practices, which had a far more devastating effect on black housing nation-wide than any private bank ever could.
(not to Rabbit, but in general here) In Detroit, Chicago, and many other major northern cities, and to a lesser extent some southern cities, choosing to patronize black businesses (be it a lunch counter or a clothing store) exclusively was less about wanting to eat 'black food' than it was about politically protesting the fact that many businesses wanted their business, but didn't want to employ them. "Don't buy where you can't work" was a slogan that defined a massive boycott movement that was designed not only to prop up struggling black businesses that relied nearly 100% on all-back patronage, but also to protest white hiring practices.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I thought soul food was still a thriving business in the south? Heck if I knew one near me I would go, after watching that Boondocks episode on it, it looks awesome!
Have you ever heard of the Lady of Shalott?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't men's/women's items (like gyms) one of the things people claim would be eliminated if the ERA passed? Allowing the gyms would fit into the whole why we can have separate bathrooms discussion (privacy issues). I think you would have a lot more trouble if you started say a grocery store and allowed only woman to shop there.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I think about it the more I am convinced that the Civil Rights laws making discrimination in a private business illegal is pro-Libertarian not anti.
Sure, it forces a private business to do something, but that something is protecting the private property of others--and Protecting Private Property Rights is the one think Libertarians agree that Government should do.
What the Civil Rights laws did was protect the value of the property of minorities.
See, if a black man and a white man in 1950's Alabama both earned $100, the white man could spend his money anywhere. The black man's $100 could only be spent in limited places, for limited things, and at limited times. His $100 lost value because of the biases of the white-only businesses.
I have felt the same thing with "Trade" money--money I earned on a commercial exchange, but could only be used at limited businesses and at limited times. As such I did not want to make that "trade" money unless I earned 25% more than normal.
A black man in 1950's Alabama was not only paid less than his white counterpart, but that money was of less value.
Hence the White Only Business model was robbing black men of the value of their property. The government had a right and a libertarian responsibility to stop it.
On another note, many white owned businesses wanted the business of their black neighbors, but they couldn't get it because of the stigma attached to catering to different races. If their white clients found out they were shopping with "colored folk" they would leave and shop at another white only store. The passage of the law allowed these businesses an excuse to go after this minority business. They profited and appreciated it.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget, white only drinking fountains and black only restaurants weren't a product of the free market. The south wasn't segregated by business owners. It was segregated by government. A business owner is a greedy capitalist.
The federal government is failing us. The federal government did the right thing with the civil rights act but they are failing to enforce federal borders. What's worse is, they claim AZ can't enforce the federal laws the feds refuse to enforce. What if the federal gov't ignored civil rights when it came to segregation? Would you be so sympathetic? The Civil Rights Act was the fed's protecting the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, they pick and choose which laws they want to enforce. If a state makes a law to enforce federal law, the feds say they are acting unconstitutionally. If the feds would do their job, there wouldn't be a rapist who has been deported nine times only to return. He was deported but our border is open.
posted
We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional republic. If we were a pure democracy, segregation would never have ended. If we were a pure democracy, national health care would be passed.
Segregation was the local government enforcing democratic majority and ignoring the constitution. Tyranny against the minority is democracy. In that case, the federal government intervened to enforce the constitution. Unfortunately, the feds also ignore the constitution in other areas. We aren't a democracy. Lady justice is blind folded with a scale. Segregation in the south was the perfect example of democracy in action when the government is willing to ignore the constitution. Rand Paul would never make it "LAW" to have white only drinking fountains but he is opposed to government telling private business owners who they must serve.
Southern Democrats and the government made it illegal for a black to drink from a white fountain. A libertarian would never make a law of this kind but he would defend the right of a private business owner to serve who he wants to.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sure, it forces a private business to do something, but that something is protecting the private property of others--and Protecting Private Property Rights is the one think Libertarians agree that Government should do.
What the Civil Rights laws did was protect the value of the property of minorities.
quote: This is not a thread about immigration, but about Libertarianism and the role private property plays in social justice.
Agreed on both counts, but I disagree that the Civil Rights laws were good about protecting the property of minorities. The libertarian argument is more about limiting Government and letting people self govern. Apart from physical threats or broken contracts, I can't see libertarians getting behind growing government to protect value.
I consider myself libertarian (I hate all labels but this is the closest to what I believe). I am sympathetic to their argument that Government institutionalized racism, and there may be an intellectual argument that leaving out the private property (business) clause may have more efficiently achieved all the goals of the Civil Rights Act and may have helped contemporary race relations. I lost respect for Paul when he tried to answer the question without answering the question.
HOWEVER I have to side with the Civil Rights act, and I think you can do that as a libertarianism...at least with my brand. Since businesses are taxed and those taxes are used for society, we have an obligation to extend the same protections we grant citizens from government institutionalized racism to citizens who are buying and selling goods in the public sphere.
If a politician would introduce a bill that would require us to not have our deficit more then 3% (or some other low number) of our GDP including our military adventures and and obligations like social security AND that would force congress to balance the budget withing those parameters, I would vote in a heart beat for that candidate.
I am not part of the Tea Party movement, but I am not seeing any evidence that the two parties are reigning in spending. They just spend differently. Maybe Rand would have a positive effect on budget accountability.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a side point, did Ron Paul name his son after Ayn Rand?
Rand Paul would be opposed to the segregationist laws of the south. I understand there is a current assault on capitalism but I want to remind you....segregation wasn't the business owners refusal..it was the law. The most powerful images of the time are the students (brown v board of ed) going to the white school for the first time. Schools are government organizations. The government segregated the south. The south had a better democracy that the north. The constitution aside, the southern governments cared more about democracy than constitutionality. The front lines of desegregation were government institutions....including the bus. Rosa Parks took a stand against the government and the democratic tyranny she was subjected to. Public schools and public transit are the epitomes of the time. (they weren't privately owned)
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.
Hey lemme repost something I already said.
quote: Originally posted by Samprimary: When someone says something like "America is a republic, not a democracy!" they don't know what they're talking about. The statement is incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy
We must reassert that my vehicle is a sedan, not an automobile!
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Fortunately in America we have a represenatative republic.
Cool. Want to know something neat? We're also a democracy.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The part about the US being a constitutional republic and not a democracy has merit.
The statement "the US is a republic" is as correct as "the US is a democracy" — anytime someone says that the US is not a democracy, they're wrong. What the US is not is a direct democracy.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Samp, could you clarify? Because a democracy is a form of government in which the people legislate directly by vote while a republic is a form of government in which the people elect those who legislate.
You are confusing the general term "democracy" with the specific type of government known as a "direct democracy." You do not have to be a direct democracy in order to be considered a "democracy" or a "democratic nation."
The answer to the question "Is the united states a democracy?" is yes.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The correct answer to the question "Is America a Democracy?" is "Yes."
The correct answer to the question "Is America a Republic?" is "Yes."
The correct answer to the question "Is America a Democratic Republic?" is "Yes."
If you say that America is not a democracy because it's a republic, or that it's not a democracy because it's not a 'true' (direct) democracy, this is wrong.
You might as well say that my Chevy Silverado is not a truck, because it is an automobile. Strangely enough, it's both, and you're correct to call it either!
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
The answer to the question "Is the United States a democracy?" is yes. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. The term is not mutually exclusive nor contradictory to our status as a republic. If someone says that 'the United States is not a democracy,' they are strictly incorrect. It's like saying that a Dodge Ram is not an automobile because it is a truck.
The United States is a Democracy. The United States is a Republic. The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The United States is a democratic, constitutional republic. The United States is a representative democracy. Any of these statements is true. One thing that the United States is not is a specific form of democracy known as 'direct democracy.' The United States is not a direct democracy, but this does not make the united states 'not a democracy.'
Thanks for reading this. Totally glad that we have this straight now, yay.
sooooooooooooo everyone's got this straight now right, no more failing at english language to make a hamfisted political delineation, yeeeessss?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe an American president saying he's going to "keep his boot heel on the throat of BP" is unamerican.
Maybe it's funny the Obama admin gave a safety award to the Deep Horizon earlier in the year. Maybe it's funny the federal government had a preapproved plan to deal with a situation such as this.....since 1996. Unfortunately, they didn't have equipment necessary to contain the spill with their preapproved plan.
Good to be your source of political entertainment. The federal response to Katrina was faster. I know, I was active duty and sent to New Orleans a month after the fact. Our current administration can't do anything except blame BP. If America wants to do something, it'll do it right away. This president is waiting for BP to pump golf balls into the pipe and has cancelled the shuttle program.
We can rely on the Russians to get to space and a boot on the neck of BP is more effective than the technological might of the United States of America. Why is our federal government waiting for BP? Bush's response to Katrina was much faster.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Of all politicians, Obama is the top recipient of BP cash.
My gibberish is this...... It's the American coast line that is in danger. The American government is much more powerful with many more resources than BP. Why is the American government sitting back, waiting for BP to solve the problem?
God forbid we discover an asteroid plummeting to Earth...maybe the Russians will save us.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:My gibberish is this...... It's the American coast line that is in danger. The American government is much more powerful with many more resources than BP. Why is the American government sitting back, waiting for BP to solve the problem?
Can you explain how BP's failures are relevant to this particular thread? Especially given that you've still failed to cite any proof whatsoever for your previous claims here? It seems like you wouldn't want to go off on a separate tangent when you've still got a whole bunch of other claims to justify first.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems like you wouldn't want to go off on a separate tangent when you've still got a whole bunch of other claims to justify first.
Assuming a high degree of political spinelessness, it seems like a great time to go off on a separate tangent, given that the first batch of claims can't really be justified in the first place.
Ignore, evade, or admit. We've all seen which one he's gonna pick.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Malanthrop, your train of thought is like a herd of kittens. Why are you talking about BP? It has literally nothing to do with what you were arguing about before, or what this thread is about. Do you just pull random nonsequiturs out of a hat, do you have memory issues and forget which thread you are in, or are you actively brain damaged?
Just wondering.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It seems like you wouldn't want to go off on a separate tangent when you've still got a whole bunch of other claims to justify first.
yes it sure seems so after the last 67 times he's done exactly that.
It basically goes like this:
Mal: Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen. Everyone else: Mal, man, you're not in the kitchen. You wandered into a walk-in closet. We watched. Mal: pffffffff, liberalsPosts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spike had lots of CSI on it. Also wrestling (which I guess is on SyFy now). I think Spike used to advertise themselves as the channel for men though.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the Spike channel summary on wiki. Apparently, they can't claim first channel for men as Canada's mentv beat them
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Rand Paul cancels on Meet the Press - only other two cancellations ever were Louis Farrakhan and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
And Hitler was a vegetarian. And John Wayne Gacy painted clowns for children. What's your point?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Maybe an American president saying he's going to "keep his boot heel on the throat of BP" is unamerican.
It's not just un-American. It sounds like something you'd hear from a two-bit dictator in some banana republic.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Why is our federal government waiting for BP? Bush's response to Katrina was much faster.
But Bush was eeeeeeeeeeevil. Obama takes his time to even respond to the oil spill, and it's okay. Because he isn't eeeeeeeeevil.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, with Bush and Katrina, I had and probably most other people, had some specific steps in mind for what should be done. What exactly do people want Obama to do?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Rand Paul cancels on Meet the Press - only other two cancellations ever were Louis Farrakhan and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
And Hitler was a vegetarian. And John Wayne Gacy painted clowns for children. What's your point?
Ok. If you need help deducing "my point" then I'll tell you, but first I will ask you a question:
Do you agree with Rand Paul that we should repeal the part of the act which prevents you from excluding customers from your private business based on race?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what I think of that, but I do note that today such a repeal is perhaps unlikely to lead to renewed large-scale segregation. Certainly there would be white bars and black bars, but there wouldn't be the situation where every bar had a separate counter for the second-class citizens.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Do you agree with Rand Paul that we should repeal the part of the act which prevents you from excluding customers from your private business based on race?
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Maybe an American president saying he's going to "keep his boot heel on the throat of BP" is unamerican.
It's not just un-American. It sounds like something you'd hear from a two-bit dictator in some banana republic.
If Obama were threatening to, say, use the disaster as an excuse to nationalize BP and seize their assets for the use of the Fatherland, I might agree.
But since what he's actually talking about is keeping the pressure on a corporation that's largely responsible for a huge environmental catastrophe with enormous, wide-ranging effects in the face of a system that seems to have multiple loopholes put into it specifically to allow companies like BP to weasel out of responsibility, I'm going to have to say comparing this statement to that of some third-world dictator is absurdity bordering on paranoid delusion.
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Do you agree with Rand Paul that we should repeal the part of the act which prevents you from excluding customers from your private business based on race?
I expect she does, if only because she can't wait to see Jews persecuted in the US just so her beliefs about Israel's (practical, not theological) necessity will be proven correct.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to have to say comparing this statement to that of some third-world dictator is absurdity bordering on paranoid delusion.
I disagree. The comparison was "sounds like." That's a very limited comparison.
All right, first, the quote didn't originate from Obama, but from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Second, the original quote was "We will keep our boot on their neck until the job gets done." Banana Republics don't usually include termination conditions for oppression. Now, one can argue that in an era where some people love to bring up scary images about jack-booted agents kicking in doors at the drop of a hat, we should abandon all mention of boots in comments by public figures altogether, but I maintain that comparing the comment to that of a dictator is both ridiculous and inane.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Lifetime is the White Woman channel
They're paired in an unholy alliance with the Hallmark Channel.
It's so true! It's terrifying just how much of a hold they have on the two most important women in my life!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I expect she does, if only because she can't wait to see Jews persecuted in the US just so her beliefs about Israel's (practical, not theological) necessity will be proven correct.
She has a paranoid personality disorder in general (see: her comments about her daughter's safety here v. israel, her comments about the census, her comments about anything governmental) so she doesn't need any of her concepts to be proven correct by anything extant. Imagined is sufficient.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I expect she does, if only because she can't wait to see Jews persecuted in the US just so her beliefs about Israel's (practical, not theological) necessity will be proven correct.
She has a paranoid personality disorder in general (see: her comments about her daughter's safety here v. israel, her comments about the census, her comments about anything governmental) so she doesn't need any of her concepts to be proven correct by anything extant. Imagined is sufficient.
Whistled. This seems exceedingly inappropriate to me.
Samp, I get the feeling you think you can do whatever you want because PJ seems pretty much to have checked out. I obviously can't stop you, but you should know, at least in my opinion, you are one of the major problems with this place.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I obviously can't stop you, but you should know, at least in my opinion, you are one of the major problems with this place.
Every once in a while, I agree with Squick.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
