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.
If the government states that all men are created equal, and black people are people, then why should there need to even exist federal legislation giving black people rights? For the record, I am a black man. I am also an Anarcho-Capitalist, and I do not believe in a government that needs to "issue" rights to people. People should have rights, because rights are natural law, not government law. And as the results of this, one should not need to beg the government for rights, but rather we need to abolish the government that tries to take those rights away from you. I feel that the main issue in the Civil Rights movement was that black people gave the government legitimacy by asking the government for rights. When black people should have been able to succeed despite the government, not because of government.
Now since I criticize Civil Rights, how would I have handled the situation? Well, prior to the Civil Rights movement, black people were showing amazing signs of economic progress. Because Black People understood that the government would NOT step in and help them, then that mean black people had to arm and defend themselves. They also had to build their own communities, their own businesses, build their own schools, and never need a red cent from the government. Back in the 1900s to 1960s black Americans were the most self-sufficient group in America.
I think the only way to fix black America now is to repel all Civil Rights. Because we can talk about genes and low IQs all day. But the bottomline black America is dysfunctional, because black people believe in government more than any other group in America. Black people do NOTHING but wait for government to step in and solve problems. But since the government doesn't know how to solve problems, and black people do. I think we need to just remove all government support out of the black community. 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.
The only recourse for black America will be to actually build up their own communities. This mean build their own businesses, build their own schools, and build their own infrastructure. This will stimulate greater economic activity in the black community, and this will in essence rescue the Black Community from big government.
If the blacks and other groups do not fight for their rights they will not be given them. Blacks would still be slaves. You need to read history, and I suggest reading, "The People's History of the the United States" first.
Make no mistakes about it. You remove government protectionism, and let black and whites compete with no government intervention. You will see a much closer competition. You can't overlook how the government limits the free market and only give advantages to certain people. For example, the FED picks winners and losers, and this is arbitrary. That is why I'm ready to compete. Get rid of the government, and let's only rely on market. And see who comes out ahead.
Then we can squash this once and for all. Deal?
I disagree. Minimal government control in the South and other states, look what happened. Jim Crow instituted, both in social and legal means. Blacks could not even vote in several states. This was not big government. This was local government in many states. Big government mostly stayed out of the way. With big government staying out of the way, Jim Crow flourished. Blacks got the short end of everything. Blacks were placed in schools inferior to Whites. Big government didn't do this. It just allowed it. Blacks were even hampered in the free market. If Blacks competed and outperformed Whites, they would be seen as "uppity" and subjected to all kinds of problems.
The issue is no people not having civil rights. The problem is with the government acknowledging Civil Rights or the government allowing civil rights to be violated. I feel that the government should have no say so in whether or not people have rights. People can assert their own rights, the government is the only institution that can take them away. This is why black Americans and all Americans should arm themselves in case the government tries to violate these Civil Rights.
The Native Americans fought for their own rights. They lost. Many slaves lost their own lives. Basically, what you are saying is it is okay for the strongest man to win, because for 200 years or more blacks were enslaved and could not protect themselves. My gosh, they were beaten, killed, in chains, etc. You really need to take some Black History classes or read books by blacks. Maybe, I think you really are not black.
P.S. I began reading more of these posts. My gosh, you all need to study black history. For some here I would begin with Tim Wise's books.
The Native Americans fought for their own rights. They lost. Many slaves lost their own lives. Basically, what you are saying is it is okay for the strongest man to win, because for 200 years or more blacks were enslaved and could not protect themselves. My gosh, they were beaten, killed, in chains, etc. You really need to take some Black History classes or read books by blacks. Maybe, I think you really are not black.
P.S. I began reading more of these posts. My gosh, you all need to study black history. For some here I would begin with Tim Wise's books.
I have all of the confidence in the world that if it became the "strongest man survives", black people have all of the chance in the world of surviving. We have to put things in perspective. The world was largely segregated 500 years ago. Black people didn't understand Western society, and probably had no idea how to operate in such complex forms of government. Blacks were also not allowed to have any education as well, nor understand this technology that only white people had. This wasn't a "level" playing field.
But since technology has gotten to a point where anyone can use it and anyone can understand it. Then we may see more balance if the two groups had to compete. And I think this type of competition is good for America. Also it is very possible that the market will have blacks and other groups unifying for shared economic interest the way that businesses do.
I can see nothing but positives behind relying totally on market and getting government out of the picture.
1) Laws prevented Blacks from voting.
2) Blacks were subjected to laws that violated their Constitutional rights.
3) Blacks were being subjected to all kinds of abuses outside of the law and seeing very little justice served.
I disagree. Minimal government control in the South and other states, look what happened. Jim Crow instituted, both in social and legal means. Blacks could not even vote in several states. This was not big government. This was local government in many states. Big government mostly stayed out of the way. With big government staying out of the way, Jim Crow flourished. Blacks got the short end of everything. Blacks were placed in schools inferior to Whites. Big government didn't do this. It just allowed it. Blacks were even hampered in the free market. If Blacks competed and outperformed Whites, they would be seen as "uppity" and subjected to all kinds of problems.
The problem is not the market.
Do you know what free market is? There is nothing fundamentally free market about Jim Crow laws. Now when I say blacks and whites should compete within a free market, I mean a completely free market. So ideally protectionist laws like Jim Crow wouldn't exist.
But you can't make an anti-free market argument, and then start throwing Jim Crow in my face, which is about everything free market is not about.
Do you know what free market is? There is nothing fundamentally free market about Jim Crow laws. Now when I say blacks and whites should compete within a free market, I mean a completely free market. So ideally protectionist laws like Jim Crow wouldn't exist.
But you can't make an anti-free market argument, and then start throwing Jim Crow in my face, which is about everything free market is not about.
I wasn't arguing against a free market. I'm saying a free market has nothing to do with laws violating Constitutional rights. I am saying that it took the Civil Rights Act to make the market true free. A free market lets anyone participate. It's about the work you put into it.
I wasn't arguing against a free market. I'm saying a free market has nothing to do with laws violating Constitutional rights. I am saying that it took the Civil Rights Act to make the market true free. A free market lets anyone participate. It's about the work you put into it.
How does Civil Rights make the market freer? How is telling people who they can or can't discriminate against any sort of freedom?
"Your rights come from the constitution, not the government."
You are surely not an anarcho-capitalist. That's 100% old school statism right there.
I also believe natural rights come before any sort of arbitrary mandate from government.
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.
