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.
No. Libertarianism does not advocate that. Some people have interpreted it to mean that, but they are wrong.
Were the Libertarians to elect a President (fat chance), he or she would still have to deal with the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and other laws of the land. All ban segregation.
Private business would still be forbidden from doing that.
Look, Libertarians are not against all laws and government. Just excessive and superfulous ones.
Their website states this:
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
You got nothing to worry about.
Exactly! Spot on! Not really hard to understand IMO!
Are you serious... where have you been the past few years (or maybe you think the whole "birther" thang was really just a "black" invention)?!! In fact all you have to do is look no farther than many of the racist digs at Obama even here in these forums...including casual assessments of "black self-esteem", from the same folks who would be up in arms re: any mention of "poor whites" shortcomings (aka "rednecks")!
So you want Libertarianism to be taken seriously? First requirement... deal in reality, instead of "theory" (and Denial ain't just a river in Egypt)!
What's your point? Anyone can google any image of the last few Presidents made by idiots. That doesn't mean that valid criticisms of POLICY are racist. I know some folks can't of both parties think people who disagree are stupid, but saying they are racist takes the cake.
In regards to some idiot posters opinions, are you saying that anyone who shares the same policy positions with a person who happens to be a stupid racist is guilty by association? Using your logic, I guess that makes people who agree with liberals are all Communists, right? Exactly.
In regards to birthers, most of those people were fringe and notice the few who were not backed off once the birth certificate was produced. It's interesting how proof of presidential eligibility for President Eisenhower and John McCain wasn't racist, but somehow it is for President Obama?
In regards to black self-esteem, even BLACK posters have brought this up. I am Black and see this issue in others I know, especially in the South. It is a valid concern to bring up due to historical oppression.
If you want to discuss poor whites, bring up a topic regarding them, and we will probably agree on most concerns. Most people don't discuss rednecks because they are hidden from society due to not living in urban areas and being on the nightly news.
In regards to Libertarianism, I don't care if it's taken seriously or not. My goal is not for everyone to be libertarian, I actually prefer a nation where each state decides its' own destiny as long as individual rights are protected. As long as they follow the Constitution and allow people to leave, I don't care if states like California wants to go full-blown Communist or socialist and pass single payer, tax the rich, high welfare, gay marriage, abortion, etc. I simply want to find a state that matches my views and live there. (I already do partially since no libertarian state exists).
Come on, you can do better than that. Show me where the racism lies from people and things that actually matter (current political leaders still supported by their party, current party platforms and legislation passed). Using the postings of some anonymous idiot online as your proof only makes your arguments seem weak.
For the record, I have never supported George W. Bush. I am simply pointing out that you can find stupid images of any recent president made by anonymous idiots with no power.
Last edited by Freedom123; 09-01-2011 at 04:03 PM..
I agree with the rest of your post, but this statement about "lot in life" is not accurate. The Black poverty rate has dropped from 60% to 27% in 1968, after those laws were passed. It has remained near 25% since the 60s. The "poor black folks" everyone seems obsessed with are only a minority of the black population.
In fact, if you remove the single mothers and their 40% rate, the poverty rate would be only 8% for Black Americans.
Lets discuss your points.
The black poverty rate dropped from 55.1% to 34.7% between 1960 and 1968. Absolutely true. But the "great society" programs that were created to address poverty didn't come about until late 1964(which is when most Civil Rights acts came into effect).
The reality is that the black poverty rate was about 90% in 1940, and had fallen to 55% by 1959. By the time the "Economic opportunity act" came into effect towards the end of 1964, the black poverty rate had already dropped to about 43%.
To recap, in 25 years from 1940 to 1965, the black poverty rate had fallen from 90% to 43%. It fell from 43% to 35% from 1965 to 1968. I don't see any actual connection between dropping poverty rates and the great society.
A more interesting thing to look at in regards to the "great society" is the rates of of "out-of-wedlock" births. If you scroll down to page 9 of this link, it shows a nice graph of the increase in out-of-wedlock births.
There is nothing on which to demonstrate the failure of libertarian principles because they've never been put into practice in this country. So I'd like to know why critics of libertarianism are so dang critical of something that hasn't demonstrated failure, since it hasn't even been practiced.
Think it has little to do with libertarianism itself, most people don't know what libertarianism is, but it's that the media speaks only about the D's and the R's as they are trained to do, for example they try to ignore Ron Paul, who has some libertarian beliefs but mainly constitution conservative, as a tactic to keep him out of people's minds.
Last edited by clsicmovies; 09-01-2011 at 11:25 PM..
...including casual assessments of "black self-esteem", from the same folks who would be up in arms re: any mention of "poor whites" shortcomings (aka "rednecks")!
Rednecks and poor urban blacks have a lot in common:
I suggest Thomas Sowell's books. It is a shame most American's read the crapola of the Hannitys and Franklins and other talking heads when academians such as Sowell are largely ignored. Sowell's "The Economics and Politics of Race" should be required reading.
Your argument is a little different from some of the others'. I agree, a Libertarian president would have to compromise, but I won't vote for someone who thinks it is OK to not do business with blacks. I don't care if it's an intellectual excercise on his part.
Nor would I Katiana. Nor would most people. Such a person would be unelectable in any party.
The black poverty rate dropped from 55.1% to 34.7% between 1960 and 1968. Absolutely true. But the "great society" programs that were created to address poverty didn't come about until late 1964(which is when most Civil Rights acts came into effect).
The reality is that the black poverty rate was about 90% in 1940, and had fallen to 55% by 1959. By the time the "Economic opportunity act" came into effect towards the end of 1964, the black poverty rate had already dropped to about 43%.
To recap, in 25 years from 1940 to 1965, the black poverty rate had fallen from 90% to 43%. It fell from 43% to 35% from 1965 to 1968. I don't see any actual connection between dropping poverty rates and the great society.
A more interesting thing to look at in regards to the "great society" is the rates of of "out-of-wedlock" births. If you scroll down to page 9 of this link, it shows a nice graph of the increase in out-of-wedlock births.
Before the "great society" programs began around 1965, black out-of-wedlock birthrates were at about 25%. By 1972 they had nearly doubled to 45%.
Very sad.
Good morning,
I'll definitely go with the fact that the trend was already going in that direction. Trust, I'm no Great Society supporter, primarily because of the out of wedlock birth incentives, but even your data shows the rates dropped even faster after those programs were created. I'll leave it up to others to determine whether it was due to the Great Society or due to factors already occurring, but Great Society advocates can lay a valid claim to it since rates bumped up again after Nixon took office. Either way, these are minor arguments in my opinion compared to the negatives of out of wedlock births, so we'll just say you're right.
Other data I've seen has shown the rate to be around 25% since the late 60s, but since this is from the census I stand corrected.
Nor would I Katiana. Nor would most people. Such a person would be unelectable in any party.
"Principles" are SUCH a nuisance!
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.
Not really hard to understand IMO!
