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.
Oh I forgot. The federal government has never passed pro-racist legislation nor has it ever engaged in nefarious covert activities to oppress minorities.
Good thing we got that cleared up.
You responded to something that I did not say. I did not mention the federal government's complicity.
This is what I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post Who do you think is here now? These people haven't left and they haven't changed their tune. They have their power limited by federal law.
Then this is what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Oh I forgot. The federal government has never passed pro-racist legislation nor has it ever engaged in nefarious covert activities to oppress minorities.
Good thing we got that cleared up.
Which did not clear up my point at all.
Let me make it a bit clearer to you, as perhaps it was not you who was being obtuse:
Here in Mississippi there are still many, many white people who resent the federal government's intervention to change their way of life. They tolerate black people in the public sphere, but they do not like it. They do like what they see from the current president. If there were somehow a way for them to re-disenfranchise black people more than they can now, they would. That means no service or back-door service in restaurants, stores, doctor's offices, you name it.
Perhaps you've never really experienced the Deep South. It is different here. GreenMariner is absolutely correct in that there are business owners who would be glad to forgo his business. Or yours too, if you are as dark as you say you are.
The United States is a broad and diverse nation. One cannot always effectively imagine what it is like living in an unfamiliar part of the country. There was a show on last night about racial laws in Oregon banning black people from living there until much later than I would have expected. The current black population was said to be about 9%.
What a contrast from the city where I work which is now over 80% black. Of course the racial ratios in the tri-county area is about the same as it was before white flight. It's just that the exodus left the city and took the money to the surrounding suburbs. It would feel odd to me to have almost no black people around.
There is a reason that Mississippi has the reputation that it has. I think you were the one who brought up Mississippi Burning. Let me remind you that Faulkner would say that the movie is not the past at all, but the present. White people here know about what it means to be in power. That has not changed.
You responded to something that I did not say. I did not mention the federal government's complicity.
This is what I said:
Then this is what you said:
Which did not clear up my point at all.
Let me make it a bit clearer to you, as perhaps it was not you who was being obtuse:
Here in Mississippi there are still many, many white people who resent the federal government's intervention to change their way of life. They tolerate black people in the public sphere, but they do not like it. They do like what they see from the current president. If there were somehow a way for them to re-disenfranchise black people more than they can now, they would. That means no service or back-door service in restaurants, stores, doctor's offices, you name it.
Perhaps you've never really experienced the Deep South. It is different here. GreenMariner is absolutely correct in that there are business owners who would be glad to forgo his business. Or yours too, if you are as dark as you say you are.
The United States is a broad and diverse nation. One cannot always effectively imagine what it is like living in an unfamiliar part of the country. There was a show on last night about racial laws in Oregon banning black people from living there until much later than I would have expected. The current black population was said to be about 9%.
What a contrast from the city where I work which is now over 80% black. Of course the racial ratios in the tri-county area is about the same as it was before white flight. It's just that the exodus left the city and took the money to the surrounding suburbs. It would feel odd to me to have almost no black people around.
There is a reason that Mississippi has the reputation that it has. I think you were the one who brought up Mississippi Burning. Let me remind you that Faulkner would say that the movie is not the past at all, but the present. White people here know about what it means to be in power. That has not changed.
Did that clear up the point?
If it's so bad there...move. That's what I get told all the time. And my complaints are about tangible incidents of violence against innocents not just in this country but around the globe. Yours are about "feelings" (though I have no doubt of validity on some scale).
*shrug*
The point of my response is that while federal law may have negated some of the ugly consequences of local actions the fact remains that all government is involuntary, forces association, promotes violence, and is generally the most immoral and illogical social construct humans have ever conjured up in our minds. The federal government is just as dirty as local government.
The ironic part of your thesis is that heightened/all encompassing collectivism carried out by government edict (at all levels) is what keeps those bigots from remaining in power generation after generation.
If the good people can't see them for what they truly are and then use all their tools of freedom (private property rights, freedom of association, freedom of movement, owning the fruits of your labor) to drive them out then nothing to very little changes.
That's the point you folks are missing. The government, and it's so-called law/justice, actually protect and promote bad behavior because of its monopoly on the use of force.
Would bad people still exist? Could they still thrive by support from fellow bad people?
Of course.
But it wouldn't be set in stone by government edict and my argument is that the free market (and my definition of a free market is COMPLETELY FREE) would drastically decrease the number of bad people thriving.
Instead of the racist restaurant owner being forced to serve black folks and biting his tongue let him put his sign in the window refusing them. But in response let people be free and operate in a free market. I for one would never do business with the owner or anyone who does business with him.
So this restaurant owner better know how to rebuild a transmission, do his own root canal, shingle his own roof, and cut his own hair because if folks can be COMPLETELY free to shun him...this guy is going to have to live under a rock in the middle of nowhere real quick.
But now we've waded into the "results" part of the debate and I try to steer clear of that. Why?
THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS
THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS
THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS
Learn it. Know it. Live it.
And it doesn't matter that I personally could be/would be subjected to being barred from a private business.
I'm not above the non-aggression principle and private property rights due to any Collectivist grouping by the government.
The United States is a broad and diverse nation. One cannot always effectively imagine what it is like living in an unfamiliar part of the country. There was a show on last night about racial laws in Oregon banning black people from living there until much later than I would have expected. The current black population was said to be about 9%.
Not surprising, really.
There is a book called Sundown Towns, by James W. Loewen, which describes towns/communities all over the US, including Oregon, which restricts black people from living there. And actually, most of these "sundown towns" were located north of the Mason Dixon line, in states like Indiana and Illinois.
Heck, San Leandro, California was by definition a sundown town up until the late 1960s/early 1970s - they defined themselves by not being Oakland, just to the north, and not making black people welcome there.
If it's so bad there...move. That's what I get told all the time. And my complaints are about tangible incidents of violence against innocents not just in this country but around the globe. Yours are about "feelings" (though I have no doubt of validity on some scale).
*shrug*
The point of my response is that while federal law may have negated some of the ugly consequences of local actions the fact remains that all government is involuntary, forces association, promotes violence, and is generally the most immoral and illogical social construct humans have ever conjured up in our minds. The federal government is just as dirty as local government.
The ironic part of your thesis is that heightened/all encompassing collectivism carried out by government edict (at all levels) is what keeps those bigots from remaining in power generation after generation.
If the good people can't see them for what they truly are and then use all their tools of freedom (private property rights, freedom of association, freedom of movement, owning the fruits of your labor) to drive them out then nothing to very little changes.
That's the point you folks are missing. The government, and it's so-called law/justice, actually protect and promote bad behavior because of its monopoly on the use of force.
Would bad people still exist? Could they still thrive by support from fellow bad people?
Of course.
But it wouldn't be set in stone by government edict and my argument is that the free market (and my definition of a free market is COMPLETELY FREE) would drastically decrease the number of bad people thriving.
Instead of the racist restaurant owner being forced to serve black folks and biting his tongue let him put his sign in the window refusing them. But in response let people be free and operate in a free market. I for one would never do business with the owner or anyone who does business with him.
So this restaurant owner better know how to rebuild a transmission, do his own root canal, shingle his own roof, and cut his own hair because if folks can be COMPLETELY free to shun him...this guy is going to have to live under a rock in the middle of nowhere real quick.
But now we've waded into the "results" part of the debate and I try to steer clear of that. Why?
THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS
THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS
THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS
Learn it. Know it. Live it.
And it doesn't matter that I personally could be/would be subjected to being barred from a private business.
I'm not above the non-aggression principle and private property rights due to any Collectivist grouping by the government.
I'm still not getting through to you. The bigots are still in power.
But enough of you arguing against. Suppose the people of this country decide to subscribe to the principles you favor. How would you see daily life like for men, women, and children of the various parts of the country? I'm having trouble seeing what life would be like for people like me who just want to do my part to help improve life in these United States. Please explain what you would have instead of what exists now.
I'm still not getting through to you. The bigots are still in power.
But enough of you arguing against. Suppose the people of this country decide to subscribe to the principles you favor. How would you see daily life like for men, women, and children of the various parts of the country? I'm having trouble seeing what life would be like for people like me who just want to do my part to help improve life in these United States. Please explain what you would have instead of what exists now.
Of course the bigots are still in power. The State promotes and protects bad people. They do it through legislation, regulation, bribery, corporate shilling, unbridled violence (my favorite), and a host of other nefarious activities.
The State has a monopoly on force. Those willing to do its bidding receive preferential treatment from the State and force gets applied to their enemies. This is how local jurisdictions, especially in the South, were able to oppress for so long and to such a great extent. It's why I'm sure, as you say, there is still a presence.
It's how my Rust Belt ghetto was turned into a war zone as various groups jockeyed for control over the State-regulated activities of "illegal" gambling, prostitution, gun ownership, and drugs (notice not one thing in that group is a violation of the non-aggression principle...). And I do believe urban violence is still a problem. Hmmm....wonder why.
To your question...
If the majority of people decided to ditch Statism for anarchy then people would be free to choose who to associate with, move freely, own the fruits of their labor, and private property rights would thrive.
I can only speak for myself but the first thing I would do is form numerous personal contracts with all kinds of people to greatly improve my life and the lives of the less fortunate. Though altered, there would still be a need for my current line of work: loss prevention. I'd probably get involved in private policing. I'd be very active in dispute resolution councils (DRCs) which would replace the involuntary courts.
The question really is: what would you do? It's your life and you have free will.
You responded to something that I did not say. I did not mention the federal government's complicity.
This is what I said:
Then this is what you said:
Which did not clear up my point at all.
Let me make it a bit clearer to you, as perhaps it was not you who was being obtuse:
Here in Mississippi there are still many, many white people who resent the federal government's intervention to change their way of life. They tolerate black people in the public sphere, but they do not like it. They do like what they see from the current president. If there were somehow a way for them to re-disenfranchise black people more than they can now, they would. That means no service or back-door service in restaurants, stores, doctor's offices, you name it.
Perhaps you've never really experienced the Deep South. It is different here. GreenMariner is absolutely correct in that there are business owners who would be glad to forgo his business. Or yours too, if you are as dark as you say you are.
The United States is a broad and diverse nation. One cannot always effectively imagine what it is like living in an unfamiliar part of the country. There was a show on last night about racial laws in Oregon banning black people from living there until much later than I would have expected. The current black population was said to be about 9%.
What a contrast from the city where I work which is now over 80% black. Of course the racial ratios in the tri-county area is about the same as it was before white flight. It's just that the exodus left the city and took the money to the surrounding suburbs. It would feel odd to me to have almost no black people around.
There is a reason that Mississippi has the reputation that it has. I think you were the one who brought up Mississippi Burning. Let me remind you that Faulkner would say that the movie is not the past at all, but the present. White people here know about what it means to be in power. That has not changed.
Did that clear up the point?
I have relatives who come from Mississippi and Louisiana. My father is a born and raised Midwesterner from Milwaukee,WI. His parents are from the Mississippi Delta. My grandparents grew up in a society that was about 60-70 years removed from the Civil War. They came up in a place where Jim Crow was basically the law of the land. They left the South for the Midwest. One of the reasons was for jobs. The other reason was to get away from the oppressive society known as Jim Crow.
I have talk to some people from Mississippi who left Mississippi. Some of them have told me that Mississippi has always been years behind the rest of the USA. Based on what my father has told me of Mississippi, it has made me not want to live in Mississippi (I live in Georgia right now). If feel like if any state might revert back to Jim Crow ways, if allowed to do so, it would be Mississippi.
This is what I know. It took force to get people to stop discriminating. When allowed to do so, racial discrimination was rife. Either some people don't get it, or they want racial discrimination to come back and won't readily admit it. Some people think they have the luxury of not considering if things were ever to revert back to the days of Jim Crow.
I've read about Oregon. I know it has its racist history. It also had the KKK. However, with Oregon, it started changing. While Mississippi was dragged out of the Jim Crow era kicking and screaming, at least Oregon was able to transition out of its racially motivated "bad old days" much quieter.
Without government, there is just anarchy. Alot of people would just go crazy and do whatever they want, and that would get alot of people hurt. We would see a very Darwinist way of living. Government may not be legitimate to you, but tell that to the government, and you will learn that it isn't the case. You can't have rights in a scenario of "might makes right". It takes law and order for that. It takes governments laying out what the laws are and what the purposes of those laws are for.
And something else. You might not be able to force me to pay for something. However, if I take something without paying for, remember this: Without a government dictating the laws or any law enforcement around, I could get away with stealing. With the government ruling and the courts being the levelers of our society, a thief goes to prison.
And you obviously did not get the point. The point is this. You are defining aggression differently than other people are. And according to you, having government is some kind of aggression.
I've explained it multiple times in this thread alone, and I don't want to get off topic, but I'll do it one more time... defensive force is justified, and there most certainly would be rules (don't initiate force or violate property rights) which would be backed by force.
It's not that the government's authority isn't legitimate "to me", it's that it can't possibly be legitimate unless they have the same rights as anyone else...in which case they can only use force defensively, and therefore can't tax or impose offensive laws, etc. so why call them government? I laid it out in the first paragraph responding to Chi - no person or group can delegate rights to the government that they never had to begin with. I can't emphasize enough that it's logically impossible.
And yes, I got the point. I explained further in my next paragraph...
"What we're ultimately arguing is that people aren't being consistent with their own beliefs, assuming they don't believe they're personally justified in using force offensively against their neighbors.
Of course some people would NOT feel any guilt personally forcing their neighbor to do their bidding or pay for their stuff, but most of us would consider them criminals or sociopaths."
Quote:
Wow, treating all people regardless of ethnicity with respect, not using race as a reason to turn someone away from buying something, if that is force, then obviously there is not a difference in opinion, but a difference in moral standards.
Treating people with respect isn't force. Forcing them to respect and serve you is force, and not defensive force either.
of course hospitals should determine who they treat, just as any other business should determine who it sells to or even as to who you admit into your home. Should men with guns force you to admit someone who doesnt meet your criteria for acceptence, into your home?
Absent a law do you see hospitals refusing to treat asian, white or "colored" people?
We're about to see how this all plays out; there are precedents, this piece covers some of them:
When the Religious Doctor Refuses to Treat You The Trump administration is making it easier for medical providers to object to procedures on religious grounds. Will patients suffer as a result?
Quote:
...Roger Severino, the head of civil-rights enforcement at HHS, also made remarks at the event, saying, “the state should not force people to go against their integrated view of humanity.” He added that though there had been just 10 complaints from health-care workers related to religious beliefs during the Obama administration, there have already been 34 in the first year of the Trump presidency.
On Friday, HHS followed up by issuing a proposed rule that would affect as many as 745,000 hospitals, doctors’ offices, and nonprofits. It would require them to post notices of protections against religious discrimination on their job applications and employee manuals, and it would allow HHS to enforce protections for religious medical providers. The new rule would cost about $312.3 million in the first year alone to implement. ...
No it does not. Jim Crow explicitly permitted and sanctioned racial discriminated. It called for so-called "separate but equal". Jim Crow was a set of laws that explicitly singled out Black people and limited what Blacks could do. It allowed for alot of abuses. The Civil Rights Act reversed everything that Jim Crow did. It is because of the Civil Rights Act that racial discrimination has been declared unconstitutional. I can vote and no one will be trying to openly prevent me from registering to vote. I can eat, travel, live, wherever I want and no one can stop me. If there are any laws stating "Blacks are not allowed to live here", they are not enforceable anymore. They are declared unconstitutional. I have the same freedoms as anyone else in this country. And if you disagree with that, too bad. You are the one operating on moral bankruptcy, not me.
Who am I to say what is unfair? Someone who understands what is right and what is wrong. Jim Crow was wrong, period. Racial discrimination is wrong. And if you disagree with me, you are being the bigot, not me.
One thing you gotta give these guys (libertarians, an-caps, & so on) is their highly-developed & well-sharpened skill of self-deception.
Wholeheartedly agree with your historical assessment. Thank the Gods for those with finely-tuned bs detectors like as yours!
Long story short: Neo-Confederates, both then & now, were attempting to recover rights based on white supremacy.
Short story longer:
Some folks resisted the outcomes & natural consequences of the American Civil War therefore Jim Crow laws were created to follow the 1800–1866 Black Codes, which had previously restricted the civil rights & civil liberties of African Americans.
During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the United States for freedmen, African Americans who had formerly been slaves, & former free black persons.
Some folks resisted the Civil Rights Act of 1875's guarantee that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in public accommodations, such as inns, public transportation, theaters, & other places of recreation.
Segregation, Jim Crow laws & 'separate but equal' dogma were about maintaining or attempting to recover rights based on white supremacy that were lost when the Confederate States of America lost the American Civil War.
May I make a suggestion? You gotta up your game if you wanna bring in the marks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
I'm working with a government education, bear with me.
But corporations and democracies don't exist in a free society...at least as they are defined now so my point stands.
If you're going to rail against anarchy at least know what it is and what it ain't.
By chance are you "working with a government education" brought to you by Mr. Rothbard? After all, he taught, lectured & on & on at 'government education' institutions.
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.
). And I do believe urban violence is still a problem. Hmmm....wonder why.
