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.
I'm not understanding how "blacks don't need to pay taxes" conflates to "blacks don't need Civil Rights". Are these not completely seperate issues? I think so. Blacks need to pay taxes because Americans need to pay taxes. If you own a home you pay property taxes whether or not you have children in schools, the main beneficiary of property tax revenue. A black family pays the tax rate scheduled for their tax district even if the school(s) in that district are sub-par. Addressing some of these injustices is a worthy endeavor but to suggest that they be addressed by a tax mutiny might rise to the level of sedition. The question as I see it is: do you have the stones to put your money where your mouth is and go Wesley Snipes on the Dept. of the Treasury? Do you? I think I know the answer to that. As for blacks not needing Civil Rights... <shrug> they are here. They are probably less significant on the ground than in theory but you should be glad they exist. Civil Rights possibly don't protect you enough so that you appreciate them and you (if you are) wouldn't be the first black person who thinks they are unnecessary. Would your parents agree?
ITA with the bold.
I think the OP doesn't know what he wants and is just generalizing black people in America as if we are not American citizens first and foremost. There are miniscule differences between black and white Americans. In todays day and age, we primarily face the same issues, especially since Civil Rights is not as big of an issue as it used to be.
I said blacks shouldn't have civil rights. And they shouldn't. Rights are from nature. Civil Rights are from government. It basically means "you don't really have rights, unless the government decides it's ok for you to have them". See when you tie your rights to the government acknowledging them, then you put yourself in a situation where the government can take them away. Every law from the government has a loop hole, because government isn't rational. It's all about power, and it's not about enabling you to do yourself. It's objective is too keep you dependent on it.
The government don't need to serve justice. The blacks can serve their own justice. What is commonly supressed in history are the black people who did fight back successfully against the government. Things like gun laws were created to keep black people from shooting white people who invaded their community.
People say I don't look at history. The problem is, I am. In every case history when it comes to black people have a problem. Black people already have natural rights, the government takes this right away, abuse it's power, and then turn around and give back rights that blacks already have with stipulations. If a business was selling you something that was already yours to begin with, you'd call them con-artist. But the government does it, and it's "justice"
I remember this part of your post very well:
Quote:
"Starting with giving blacks no civil rights, no right to vote, no public schools, no police force, and not 1 tax dollar going to help the black community."
You mentioned no right to vote, no public schools, no police force. Well, this is what history shows. Blacks basically had no protection from the police. This did make Blacks dole out their own justice. Whenever they tried that, it was stamped town, not just by police. Local civilians as well.
If rights were from nature, then we wouldn't need the government to make sure those rights are protected. People would naturally respect each other's rights. However, history shows us what happens when there is no government. "Might makes right" only works for criminals. Natural rights mean that those rights will be respected in absence of government. History shows this is never the case. As it applies to Blacks, the "natural rights" of Blacks have never been respected, and not just by the government. Civilians too.
Something about gun laws. The Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun. It guarantees that for everyone. However, that right was frequently disrespected when it came to Blacks. The Constitution said one thing. Local authorities and even local residents practiced something else. During the Tulsa race riot, a Black man was told to hand over his gun. A police officer didn't tell him to do this. A civilian did this. Civilians attacked a Black neighborhood.
Many government officials aren't rational. Alot of civilians aren't rational either. Look at who is running the government. No society has properly flourished without government. A government in this country often reflects the people who take part in the democratic process.
It took the federal government to put the local governments in line. This whole "we don't need government" has not worked. I have not seen one example of a society that worked without a government.
In looking at this whole idea of letting the free market do away with businesses that discriminate, I look at history. Businesses in the old days routinely refused service to Blacks. Sure, Blacks could have their own businesses. Blacks can choose to start their own businesses today. However, the free market would not have stopped discrimination. Businesses that refused Blacks thrived. It took the government to stop discrimination because the free market didn't destroy it. In theory, it could. In reality, the human factor has to be taken into account. People were stuck on keeping the Jim Crow way going. The only way to stop it was force and fighting back.
In looking at this whole idea of letting the free market do away with businesses that discriminate, I look at history. Businesses in the old days routinely refused service to Blacks. Sure, Blacks could have their own businesses. Blacks can choose to start their own businesses today. However, the free market would not have stopped discrimination. Businesses that refused Blacks thrived. It took the government to stop discrimination because the free market didn't destroy it. In theory, it could. In reality, the human factor has to be taken into account. People were stuck on keeping the Jim Crow way going. The only way to stop it was force and fighting back.
Well Hell, you might keep going and rightfully make the case that the free market brought slavery in the first place. The market provides for so much labor, so much competition, so much profit. Didn't have the necessary labor, so what did enterprising business people do? They went and found it, at the best price possible of course! Weren't about to give up those profits either..., and so it was, the American Civil War where we also begin to notice the problem of one market differing from another and another and then what?
Let the free market play itself out and everyone watch what happens?
Sure, and those making the profits at the expense of others are going to keep civil rights and all other social progress at the absolute slowest pace possible, even slower than we have witnessed already.
Arguing these facts or this reality is really something of an embarrassment, or really should be anyway...
In looking at this whole idea of letting the free market do away with businesses that discriminate, I look at history. Businesses in the old days routinely refused service to Blacks. Sure, Blacks could have their own businesses. Blacks can choose to start their own businesses today. However, the free market would not have stopped discrimination. Businesses that refused Blacks thrived. It took the government to stop discrimination because the free market didn't destroy it. In theory, it could. In reality, the human factor has to be taken into account. People were stuck on keeping the Jim Crow way going. The only way to stop it was force and fighting back.
Except we NEVER had a free market. If you keep using Jim Crow's south as your goto example, that wasn't the free market. That was a protected market. Free market means NO,and I have to say NOOOOO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
Case 1: Free market
The way business works is like this. Let's say I have a business, and I says "I won't serve customers who have black hair". Ok, well what do other people say? "Well people with black hair need busineses and services". So I someone opens that anyone can patronize.
Now let's say we both have equal quality, but people in general not just "black haired people" kind of morally like the idea of a business that doesn't discriminate. Well guess what, not only do my competior get people with black hair's money, but a subset of anybody else.
Case 2: Protectionism
So my business will never grow, or even better yet, can't make any money or stay in business because my competitor has outdone my on every level. So how do I stay in business? Well what if I went to the government and told them to make a Law where people with non-black hair can only legally come to me. That way I can assert my discrimination, but I stay in business.
See the clear difference? I'm protected from bad business practices by the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Well Hell, you might keep going and rightfully make the case that the free market brought slavery in the first place. The market provides for so much labor, so much competition, so much profit. Didn't have the necessary labor, so what did enterprising business people do? They went and found it, at the best price possible of course! Weren't about to give up those profits either..., and so it was, the American Civil War where we also begin to notice the problem of one market differing from another and another and then what?
Let the free market play itself out and everyone watch what happens?
Sure, and those making the profits at the expense of others are going to keep civil rights and all other social progress at the absolute slowest pace possible, even slower than we have witnessed already.
Arguing these facts or this reality is really something of an embarrassment, or really should be anyway...
Actually slavery was not the free market. The reason why is because the government protected slave owners. If a slave decided to escape the government would go out and bring them back the plantation. Or if slaves tried to overthrow the plantation, the government would step in and help them nulify the threat.
The government is protecting the business, this is not free market. Under a free market, a slave owner has no guarantees that slaves would indeed remain slaves. Because if the slaves destroyed their plantation, they aren't protected by government. If slaves overthrow them, they're completely out of luck.
Except we NEVER had a free market. If you keep using Jim Crow's south as your goto example, that wasn't the free market. That was a protected market. Free market means NO,and I have to say NOOOOO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
Case 1: Free market
The way business works is like this. Let's say I have a business, and I says "I won't serve customers who have black hair". Ok, well what do other people say? "Well people with black hair need busineses and services". So I someone opens that anyone can patronize.
Now let's say we both have equal quality, but people in general not just "black haired people" kind of morally like the idea of a business that doesn't discriminate. Well guess what, not only do my competior get people with black hair's money, but a subset of anybody else.
Case 2: Protectionism
So my business will never grow, or even better yet, can't make any money or stay in business because my competitor has outdone my on every level. So how do I stay in business? Well what if I went to the government and told them to make a Law where people with non-black hair can only legally come to me. That way I can assert my discrimination, but I stay in business.
See the clear difference? I'm protected from bad business practices by the government.
Actually slavery was not the free market. The reason why is because the government protected slave owners. If a slave decided to escape the government would go out and bring them back the plantation. Or if slaves tried to overthrow the plantation, the government would step in and help them nulify the threat.
The government is protecting the business, this is not free market. Under a free market, a slave owner has no guarantees that slaves would indeed remain slaves. Because if the slaves destroyed their plantation, they aren't protected by government. If slaves overthrow them, they're completely out of luck.
None of what you believe can occur in real life. Do you really think it could???
On the bold, the government initially did not protect slave owners. It was only due to the lobbying of the owners about their "rights" that government became involved in the system of slavery in this country whereas law makers were tasked with codifying slavery.
As I stated earlier, someone has to define "rights." That is a function of government by way of demand and lobbying by the people.
People demanded the "right" to own another person. Due to pressure (primarily capitalistic in nature, slavery was always one of economics in this country) the government gave in in various colonies and slavery was a huge debate amongst our "Founding Fathers" in the creation of the constitution and our nation.
On black haired people, if black haired people are a minority, they are easy to exclude from businesses and the main business will not suffer due to excluding them, which was the point of the previous poster. This may not be a huge thing in your opinion in regards to restaurants and stores, but if hospitals/medical facilities refuse to service black haired people, they will die. This was common prior to the successes of the Civil Rights movement for black Americans. If black Americans did have a hospital/medical facility, it was usually subpar or they were experimented upon (something that the government was not involved in until victims of experimentation and outrage of the populace caused government to be involved, especially after Tuskeegee).
None of what you believe can occur in real life. Do you really think it could???
On the bold, the government initially did not protect slave owners. It was only due to the lobbying of the owners about their "rights" that government became involved in the system of slavery in this country whereas law makers were tasked with codifying slavery.
Yes, because under the free market, there is no way slavery could work. They needed government to protect them. Hence the "free market created slavery" argument is flawed, and easily debunked.
Quote:
As I stated earlier, someone has to define "rights." That is a function of government by way of demand and lobbying by the people.
I think natural respect among people is good enough. I think we live in a world with enough resources for everyone to the point we won't see a lot of tribalism and war as a result. In the ancient world tribes felt the need to combat other tribes because they were less traveled and needed these resources. I don't see this really happening with the progress of economic theory, and free trade.
Quote:
People demanded the "right" to own another person. Due to pressure (primarily capitalistic in nature, slavery was always one of economics in this country) the government gave in in various colonies and slavery was a huge debate amongst our "Founding Fathers" in the creation of the constitution and our nation.
One would argue where profit motive was the reason for the birth of slavery, it was also the reason for the death of slavery. When you really think about it, slavery after awhile is actually very expensive. I've argued this in great debates. But when you think about it, slavery was expensive. Cradle to the grave enslavement would become prohibitively expensive after awhile, as slave owners were on the hook to take care of their slaves, feed, clothes, and ensure their health.
In the industrial age with more automation, and mass production manual production could not compete. So this meant that slavery itself became obsolete as a means to cut cost. This is why it really hasn't come back. While in theory you would save money initially if you had slaves, you would lose money over a long length of time because owning another humans is expensive. People say owning a car is expensive, so imagine owning another human being the total duration of their life?
Capitalism is the real hero when it comes to the end of slavery. Not government.
Actually slavery was not the free market. The reason why is because the government protected slave owners. If a slave decided to escape the government would go out and bring them back the plantation. Or if slaves tried to overthrow the plantation, the government would step in and help them nulify the threat.
Are you as sure about all you think as you should be my friend? Think again is all I can suggest to you...
"Although slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world, human trafficking remains an international problem and an estimated 29.8 million people are living in illegal slavery today."
You're not now going to try and tell me government is behind our current day problems in these regards, are you? Please no....
Except we NEVER had a free market. If you keep using Jim Crow's south as your goto example, that wasn't the free market. That was a protected market. Free market means NO,and I have to say NOOOOO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
Case 1: Free market
The way business works is like this. Let's say I have a business, and I says "I won't serve customers who have black hair". Ok, well what do other people say? "Well people with black hair need busineses and services". So I someone opens that anyone can patronize.
Now let's say we both have equal quality, but people in general not just "black haired people" kind of morally like the idea of a business that doesn't discriminate. Well guess what, not only do my competior get people with black hair's money, but a subset of anybody else.
We don't have to "let's say" any of that rubbish. That is all history. That is what segregation did.
In fact, it happens today. There are plenty of exclusive clubs and businesses today that deliberately exclude part of the potential market or price themselves far above cost necessities for the very purpose of excluding part of the potential market.
The fact is, exclusivity is valued by enough people that the exclusive business still makes satisfactory profit.
Quote:
Case 2: Protectionism
So my business will never grow, or even better yet, can't make any money or stay in business because my competitor has outdone my on every level.
That didn't happen. It doesn't happen today. Nor do pigs fly.
Quote:
So how do I stay in business? Well what if I went to the government and told them to make a Law where people with non-black hair can only legally come to me. That way I can assert my discrimination, but I stay in business.
See the clear difference? I'm protected from bad business practices by the government.
What happened is that businesses went to court to protect their already lucrative exclusivity. To put this back into reality, it was never illegal for white people to go wherever they wanted to go. They could go "slumming" whenever they wanted.
Quote:
Actually slavery was not the free market. The reason why is because the government protected slave owners. If a slave decided to escape the government would go out and bring them back the plantation. Or if slaves tried to overthrow the plantation, the government would step in and help them nulify the threat.
Slavery existed before government action and was well underway for a couple of centuries before government got involved at all.
Are you as sure about all you think as you should be my friend? Think again is all I can suggest to you...
"Although slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world, human trafficking remains an international problem and an estimated 29.8 million people are living in illegal slavery today."
You're not now going to try and tell me government is behind our current day problems in these regards, are you? Please no....
Stop the strawman, we're talking about American's form of slavery, not other forms. Remember people say capitalism created the need for slavery. When it is clear that profit and business efficiency is not why we have slavery in areas like human trafficking.
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.
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.
