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.
Wallace desperately wanted to preserve segregation. In his own words: "The President (John F. Kennedy) wants us to surrender this state to Martin Luther King and his group of pro-communists who have instituted these demonstrations."
People like Wallace and the millions of Americans who agreed with him are why America needed to pass civil rights legislation, but you can't legislate racism away as very clearly still evidenced today...
There is no such thing as "free markets" and never has been. The threat of competition makes the first merchant in the market to use his wealth to pay the politicians to use their soldiers to keep the new guy out. Economists believe in their fanciful concept of a "free market" because without one their theories make no sense. Businesses believe in monopoly because that makes them the most money.
Civil libertarians want minorities to be able to compete for wages and social status. the existing workers and their politicians do not. They want to maintain their monopoly on income and status.
How does Civil Rights make the market freer? How is telling people who they can or can't discriminate against any sort of freedom?
Well, certain laws that prevent Blacks from doing certain things no longer exist. Abuses that took place can no longer be committed. Consider this. Look at what happened to Tulsa's Greenwood district. Look what happened to Rosewood.
Telling people they can't discriminate based on race and letting someone start a business are two different things. If you discriminate against someone, you are making it harder for that person to participate. For instance, there is land I want to buy, for the purpose of agricultural production. A law says I'm not allowed to own that piece of land because of my race. In a free market, anyone can buy that land if they have the resources to do so. Telling someone "you're Black, you can't buy it" is preventing said person from using that land to compete in the free market. Better yet, here is something more. Non-Black groups could buy a building and own a business in a Black area. However, in the past, Blacks were forbidden to do such things in many areas.
I also believe natural rights come before any sort of arbitrary mandate from government.
Reality shows us otherwise. Natural rights are not respected without action to back it up. It often takes mandates from the law to make sure one's rights are respected. I am of the school of thought that many human beings will do bad things to one another. Natural rights depends on mutual trust, which has rarely been in ample supply.
Anarcho-capitalists don't believe in any form of involuntary government. Only voluntary associations based on contract law are permissible.
If you believe that The Constitution of the United States is legit...you're a statist.
I'm just trying to protect the title because I am an anarcho-capitalist. As far as I know there are only two on this entire forum.
Lol, ok then. So are you going after Chris Cantrell and Stefan Molyneux who have the anarcho-capitalist banner, yet still defend statist ideologies like police force and ethno-nationalism?
There is no such thing as "free markets" and never has been. The threat of competition makes the first merchant in the market to use his wealth to pay the politicians to use their soldiers to keep the new guy out. Economists believe in their fanciful concept of a "free market" because without one their theories make no sense. Businesses believe in monopoly because that makes them the most money.
Civil libertarians want minorities to be able to compete for wages and social status. the existing workers and their politicians do not. They want to maintain their monopoly on income and status.
Wallace desperately wanted to preserve segregation. In his own words: "The President (John F. Kennedy) wants us to surrender this state to Martin Luther King and his group of pro-communists who have instituted these demonstrations."
People like Wallace and the millions of Americans who agreed with him are why America needed to pass civil rights legislation, but you can't legislate racism away as very clearly still evidenced today...
And it was also people like Thurmond, Faubus, Maddox, and O'Connor. The people who were so against the big government were championing Jim Crow and other abuses.
Lol, ok then. So are you going after Chris Cantrell and Stefan Molyneux who have the anarcho-capitalist banner, yet still defend statist ideologies like police force and ethno-nationalism?
Cantwell (who I believe you are referencing) is back to being a Libertarian...last I heard.
Molyneux has been hedging back to statism recently though I have not been keeping up with him as much. I know Adam Kokesh has been critical of him recently. Again, I haven't been too up to speed on the goings on of the well-known an-caps.
I'm just saying that you can't be an anarcho-capitalist and believe in The Constitution as a legit contract or precedent for rights.
The two concepts simply don't jive.
EDIT: I just saw a post from you dated 4/18 where you described yourself as a minarchist bordering on anarchist. So if you're completing the transformation now welcome aboard!
Last edited by No_Recess; 05-10-2016 at 12:17 PM..
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.