U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2011, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Austin
28,968 posts, read 15,531,611 times
Reputation: 7718

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post

You all remember the topic, don't you?

Libertarian principles solve the segregation issue (supposedly)?

Yes, they do. Read them before posting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2011, 07:46 PM
 
10,963 posts, read 7,757,793 times
Reputation: 3113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I agree with you partly.

But ask yourself a question. Would the United States have been able to stand on its own two feet if we didn't have slavery to begin with? There were European countries that were still practicing slavery, so our economy wouldn't have stood a chance without it, at the time.

Not justifying slavery, but there was a method to the madness of the time. After we won our independence our founding fathers should have handled the issue. Instead, their lack of motivation to tackle the slavery issue lead to a crisis that eventually lead to civil war.

There were countless ways to not end up in that situation.

Slavery was a terrible thing, and its over in our country. I think we should focus more on how we move forward, instead of constantly looking back and using the laws and regulations of the past to justify the continuing of taking away freedoms from the individual. Westboro Baptist Cult has the right to stand and scream evil things while our soldiers are buried. I support their right to do that.

Its been said that to protect the freedoms that you love, you must stand to protect the freedoms that you don't love. I want the freedom to do what I want, when I want, and how I want, as long as it doesn't physically hurt anyone else. If I open a business, I don't want the federal government to tell me I have to serve someone if I don't want to serve them. Now personally I wouldn't turn anyone away from my business doors, your dollar is the same as his dollar. But I would like to have that right if I wanted it.
Sorry but historically relying purely on free enterprise has NOT protected Black, Latino or Asian Americans from housing discrimination, job discrimination, credit and banking discrimination, or political disenfranchisement, and other form of exclusion. The reason the current set of laws was created was the failure of human beings to make these changes on their own accord.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 08:14 PM
 
5,092 posts, read 4,360,489 times
Reputation: 4337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Yet no one can refute what I'm saying, hum.....
No, more like there were some games on TV...a hockey game and some college basketball games.

Do you really want me to pick out your fictions? How many would be sufficient for you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Austin
28,968 posts, read 15,531,611 times
Reputation: 7718
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
Sorry but historically relying purely on free enterprise has NOT protected Black, Latino or Asian Americans from housing discrimination, job discrimination, credit and banking discrimination, or political disenfranchisement, and other form of exclusion. The reason the current set of laws was created was the failure of human beings to make these changes on their own accord.

We have never relied on pure free enterprise. Slavery and discrimination against Asians and Latinos has been government controlled and condoned.

It had nothing to do with free enterprise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 08:48 PM
 
10,963 posts, read 7,757,793 times
Reputation: 3113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Do you have facts to say that my spin is fiction?

If slavery would have been ended in a way that prevented the war, then segregation wouldn't have been an issue.

Thus, its a libertarian solution.
Using a liberatarian solution to end slavery is like hammering a nail with a belt sander. It's simply the wrong tool for the job.

This is a clause in the Texas Ariticles of Secession

Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Texas


Quote:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Civil War South Carolina


Quote:
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
iDeclarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War Mississippi

Quote:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
Quote:
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
Quote:
It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention
Quote:
That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual.
Now after reading all this a few things become very clear. One, a substantial number of Southerners generally felt that African slaves were inferior. Two, they never intended for them to be treated as social equals or give them any measure of voting rights or equality. It was after all part of their "Social System" and well as their economic system.

Now after reading this if you REALLY think that segregation couldn't have been avoiding by not having a war or by legislation then the only thing you are doing is insulting your own intelligence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 09:13 PM
 
5,092 posts, read 4,360,489 times
Reputation: 4337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
The civil rights fight was a direct reflection of not settling the slavery debate the right way the first time.
Here's the first fiction - that the slavery issue was solvable prior to 1860.

The Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson, sought to place the blame for slavery in the colonies upon King George the Third. But southern representatives demanded that it be stricken from the document as they found no fault with slavery.

The 3/5ths Compromise of the United States Constitution. Northern representatives wanted no slaves counted towards congressional representation, as the slaves were not allowed to vote. Southern representatives wanted the curious situation where slaves were considered chattle and not people when it came to individual voting rights, but were considered people and not chattel when it came to apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The Constitution would have failed to get out of committee without that compromise.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which solved its crisis by dividing the territories of the nation between those that would allow slavery and those that would not.

The Dred Scott Decision not only destroyed the Missouri Compromise, but greatly expanded the rights of slave-holders into northern states. Not a shining example of supposed "states rights".

The Election of 1860, which precipitated the secession of the lower South, the landed gentry of that region unable to accept that they were no longer the federal power brokers of the nation. Attempts by some northerners to appease the South had no effect what so ever.

Every time the slavery issue came to a head, it proved unsolvable by the best minds at the time. As a result, the divisive issue kept getting papered over and kicked down the road until the southern states lost their stranglehold on the federal government and decided to wage war to preserve their way of life, which was centered around their peculiar institution.

Quote:
War was not the right way to settle the slavery debate, and Lincoln broke the law by sending federal troops to states that lawfully left the union. Period.
Here's the second fiction...that the North forced the war.

Before Lincoln was sworn in, the deep south states had already declared their secessions and were confiscating federal installations and armories. Earlier, when John Brown seized the federal armory at Harper's Ferry, the federal government caught him, tried him, convicted him and executed him. Why would southern proponents get a pass for the exact same crime?

Here's the third fiction...that the states had a legal right to secede.

There's nothing in the Constitution that defines the right of the states to secede from the union.

I know, I know...the 10th Amendment...

Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Compare it to the same part of the Articles of Confederation...

Quote:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were sovereign; under the Constitution, the states were subject to the federal government.

Secession is a 'state right' made up out of thin air.

If the 10th Amendment allowed such activity, then no less than President George Washington violated it at the beginning of the nation, when in 1794 he marshalled an army and put down the Whiskey Rebellion. If the states had a right to unilaterally secede, then by the same logic the people unilaterally had the right to revolt.

When Lincoln sent in federal troops AFTER southerners had attacked and seized Fort Sumpter, he had Washington as a precedent.

And all of that fiction is from just ONE post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 10:16 PM
 
724 posts, read 1,423,790 times
Reputation: 710
I probably should have made my post simpler. Freedom to associate is critical to free markets and freedom in general and is thus a very important libertarian value. Segregation OBVIOUSLY is the opposite of the freedom to associate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,311,199 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Here's the first fiction - that the slavery issue was solvable prior to 1860.

The Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson, sought to place the blame for slavery in the colonies upon King George the Third. But southern representatives demanded that it be stricken from the document as they found no fault with slavery.

The 3/5ths Compromise of the United States Constitution. Northern representatives wanted no slaves counted towards congressional representation, as the slaves were not allowed to vote. Southern representatives wanted the curious situation where slaves were considered chattle and not people when it came to individual voting rights, but were considered people and not chattel when it came to apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The Constitution would have failed to get out of committee without that compromise.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which solved its crisis by dividing the territories of the nation between those that would allow slavery and those that would not.

The Dred Scott Decision not only destroyed the Missouri Compromise, but greatly expanded the rights of slave-holders into northern states. Not a shining example of supposed "states rights".

The Election of 1860, which precipitated the secession of the lower South, the landed gentry of that region unable to accept that they were no longer the federal power brokers of the nation. Attempts by some northerners to appease the South had no effect what so ever.

Every time the slavery issue came to a head, it proved unsolvable by the best minds at the time. As a result, the divisive issue kept getting papered over and kicked down the road until the southern states lost their stranglehold on the federal government and decided to wage war to preserve their way of life, which was centered around their peculiar institution.



Here's the second fiction...that the North forced the war.

Before Lincoln was sworn in, the deep south states had already declared their secessions and were confiscating federal installations and armories. Earlier, when John Brown seized the federal armory at Harper's Ferry, the federal government caught him, tried him, convicted him and executed him. Why would southern proponents get a pass for the exact same crime?

Here's the third fiction...that the states had a legal right to secede.

There's nothing in the Constitution that defines the right of the states to secede from the union.

I know, I know...the 10th Amendment...



Compare it to the same part of the Articles of Confederation...



Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were sovereign; under the Constitution, the states were subject to the federal government.

Secession is a 'state right' made up out of thin air.

If the 10th Amendment allowed such activity, then no less than President George Washington violated it at the beginning of the nation, when in 1794 he marshalled an army and put down the Whiskey Rebellion. If the states had a right to unilaterally secede, then by the same logic the people unilaterally had the right to revolt.

When Lincoln sent in federal troops AFTER southerners had attacked and seized Fort Sumpter, he had Washington as a precedent.

And all of that fiction is from just ONE post.
1. Just because Slavery was pushed by many of the founding fathers at the founding of the country, doesn't mean it wasn't solvable. You are inserting your opinion as a fact. This doesn't mean its fiction to say that the problem was solvable by the founding fathers.

As I said before, the reason the south left the union was because the north was threatening to emancipate without compensation to the southern slave owners. Lincoln may have thought about that a year after the war was already started, but as I said before, by then the die was cast and the war was on. It'd be a bit like saying that you'd pay your victims back for stealing from them, and expect the courts not to prosecute you for theft.

2. The north did force the war, you again haven't proven anything about my statement as fiction. The north was forcing emancipation on the south, and without compensation. This is the core of my argument.

3. The constitution doesn't say that states do not have the right to leave the union. Since it wasn't mentioned as a right to the federal government to deny a state to leave the union, per the 10th amendment, it was the states right. This is why Justice Taney told Lincoln by letter that he couldn't try southerners for treason and that secession was legal.

Thanks for proving that you have nothing about my statements as fiction, you have your opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 06:56 AM
 
5,092 posts, read 4,360,489 times
Reputation: 4337
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist View Post
I probably should have made my post simpler. Freedom to associate is critical to free markets and freedom in general and is thus a very important libertarian value. Segregation OBVIOUSLY is the opposite of the freedom to associate.
In a nutshell, yes.

But some libertarians (Rand Paul, for instance) argue that freedom to associate includes freedom to disassociate.

Putting up a sign in your restaurant stating that it serves only whites excludes people from the marketplace. Placing a clause into a property deed that limits the property to being sold only to people of protestant northern european heritage excludes people from the marketplace. Putting a sign in your window that advertises a job opening, but including the phrase 'Irish need not apply' at the bottom excludes people from the marketplace.

Markets aren't free when people are excluded from participating in them.

If some people don't want to associate with whites or with hispanics or whoever in their private lives, then that's their right. But the marketplace, the economic sphere, is a public place - and there is no right to exlude others from the public spaces without just cause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2011, 07:59 AM
 
2,096 posts, read 1,587,436 times
Reputation: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
You might want to revisit that opinion in light of actual facts:

The Northern Slave Trade



Brown grapples with its ties to the slave trade
Although most people prefer to ignore the past, the university’s self-examination could spread discomfort far and wide



Not only were there slaves in the North in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries, Northern insurance companies, banks, shipbuilders, sailors, shipowners and related industries directly profitted from their involvement in the slave trade.

Essay 4 Northern Profits From Slavery



In fact an argument could be made that free enterprise is EXACTLY why slavery lasted asl long as it did. It was immensely profitable to plantation owners, banks, insurance companies, ship builders, ship owners, and any industry directly or indirectly related to the slave trade.
Good morning to both you and Memphis,

I am referring directly to the abolition of slavery by Northern states in the early days of the nation. I am aware of slavery before the Revolutionary War. I am also aware of companies profiting through trade, but our nation was still primarily agrarian and not industrial until the mid 19th century. I could have easily clarified and saved you the research. Along the lines of this topic, the Northern states DID use the libertarian solution to ending slavery in their states and weren't forced to do so as the South was. Regardless, thanks for the information I'm always interested in learning more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top