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.
This is incoherent. If it's wrong to commit unjust acts, and discrimination and segregation are unjust acts, then governments shouldn't commit unjust acts. What do you think segregation and discrimination are but two types of acts falling under the heading "unjust acts"?
A government should treat all the people it steals from equally. It isn't unjust for someone to prefer their own family to strangers. But it is unjust when the government prefers one group to another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
You're really reaching here. International citizenship is a matter of people living in a country outside the US, and anyway once they step onto US soil (immigrants or not), they are subject to the same laws you and I are here on US soil - all the way down to local ordinances. This is not a matter of considering people unworthy of equal dignity on merely arbitrary grounds (which is what race, color, and such is -- as there's no direct biological connection between skin melanin or bone or facial structure on one hand and criminal or degrading acts on the other).
Illegal-immigrants aren't given the same rights as actual US citizens merely because they stepped foot across the border. And even legal immigrants(before citizenship) are treated as a "different class" of people than citizens.
Segregation has nothing to do with dignity. And our immigration laws have nothing to do with dignity.
As for race, you are muddying the waters by discussing only criminality. What we call "race" is really just "ancestry". And certainly, your ancestry has a profound effect on your behavior, temperament, and intelligence, among other things.
Humans aren't "blank-slates", regardless of how much retarded leftists wish we were.
I have little interest in arguing about what race is, and if it should matter. But remember this, the world isn't really about individuals, but families. =
You have a natural preference for your family. And this liberal insistence that you "take no sides", is to proclaim a mother should treat a stranger's kid the same as her own. Nonsense.
When I say "segregation", I really mean a desire to be separate. The opposite of segregation is integration, to bring together. If you honestly believe that segregation is evil, then don't you have to be a "globalist"?
All these lefties who believe the whole world can be standing hand-in-hand singing Kumbaya. You may very well bring the whole world under a single government, but it won't be a utopia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
Any appeals to "the 'national interest'" as you describe it, global politics, etc. is irrelevant.
I will never appeal to the "National Interests" to justify anything. I was merely trying to explain why it happened. Governments cannot act for moral reasons. Although they always claim they are to trick morons.
And the failure of capitalism isn't a lack of production, but a lack of consumption. The great recession didn't happen because there were too few houses, but too many. GM didn't go bankrupt because it couldn't produce enough cars, but because no one could buy them.
Government-spending acts as an economic stimulus. And welfare programs benefit big-business. The biggest advocates for food-stamps are Coca-cola and Wal-mart. And it was the healthcare industries who wrote Obamacare.
If something isn't believed to grow the economy, or to otherwise serve America's geopolitical-interests, it will not be done. There are a million "nice" things we could be doing right now, but we aren't doing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
Individual members of an outgroup still have a right to go anywhere within their country even if they are a minority.
What is a country? What is a nation? Is America a nation? Why should I feel any differently about Representative Illhan Omar than I do some random African or Middle-Easterner?
What you call a country, I call government. This country was conquered, the land was stolen, and those who tried to secede from it, were themselves conquered, killed, and tyrannized.
I do not agree that this is a country, and we are definitely not a society. This is a prison. We are in prison together. Mexico is a prison. China is a prison. Everywhere is a prison. And some prisons are better than others.
If the government says you have a right to travel around its territory, then you can. And if it says you have a right to go to an internment camp, then you will. Just as has been done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
Maybe because the Federal Government proved more responsive to the needs of black as a group than "we the people".
Who is this Federal Government of which you speak? And was it acting out of benevolence?
Our government has never done anything out of benevolence. Do you know why the United States gives foreign aid? Do you think it is out of the kindness of our heart?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
The truth is indeed obviously both these things can be true at the same time
It is true that "as blacks get more wealth they will have more power", but my point was, blacks currently have an incredibly outsized amount of power, even though they have almost no wealth. Why?
What I'm trying to say is, blacks are being put into their positions by people above them. And it is the people above them who are making these decisions.
As long as "the money" can exploit groups like Black Lives Matter, then they'll be on the news everyday. But when they are no longer useful, they are gone.
So who really runs this country? And what do they want?
CORRECT!!!!!! I'm not White and I'm not from the South. The fact is Lincoln was a tyrant and he violated the constitutional rights to many Americans in the South and North. It's about time to set the record straight and the South should keep honoring the Confederate flag as long that We keep honoring Lincoln with memorials, schools and put him in our currency.
Doesn’t matter. You think you’re white so it’s all the same.
SORRY but you are simply WRONG in everything that you said.
The DIMocRATS of 2019 are RADICAL LEFTISTS, socialists and/or "Near-Communists". = A large percentage of the DIMs actually HATE the USA & are also BIGOTS, RACISTS, ANTI-SEMITES & clueless FOOLS.
(One of the "not so fun" things about being "of mixed race" as I am & also being "light skinned" is that you get to hear the NASTY, mean-spirited, hate-filled, things that the generally "filthy talking" LEFTIST DIMocRATS say about "persons of color", Jews, Christians, "ignorant hillbillies", "rural nobodies from flyover country", "deplorables" & other people that they FEEL "Oh so superior in every way to", IF they think only "whites"/"progressives" are listening.)
As President Ronald Reagan said, "I didn't leave the Democrats Party. They left me." ===> President Reagan was 100% CORRECT in his assessment of the DIMocRATS Party of 2019.
I had enough of trying to speak logic to those truly bent on spouting their own illogical fallacies. I did see people Express themselves. It involved expressing themselves in petulant ways, often for the sake of it, or to derail this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
That could be. It could also be that some people were never interested in discussing the topic and were interested in either gaslighting or trying g to take the discussion off course. The idea was to get people to think, to really consider some things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
It is about "freedom for me, not for thee". And I look at the Confederate cause in the same manner. That's just me.
Agree it's often about "freedom for me, not for thee" & "don't tread on my right to tread on you".
Same as it ever was ...
Coincidentally the 'derailers' often seem to prefer to attempt to deravel the The Libertarian Civil Rights Paradox rather than discuss the topic of the OP. Go figure.
Quote:
...Two major policy obstacles block Libertarians from mainstream credibility.
The first is their refusal to grapple with real-world economics, waving an ‘invisible hand’ over every problem and declaring it fixed. Worse though is their strange civil rights conundrum. Paradoxically, the party of ‘liberty’ would tear down every protection against racial discrimination. Republicans troubled by their party’s white nationalism will find little relief among present-day Libertarians. ...
"Without presuming to decide the purely legal question, on which it seems evident to me from Madison’s and Hamilton’s papers, that the Fathers of the Constitution were not agreed, I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo." - Lord Acton, letter to Robert E. Lee, 1866
"I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it." - Robert E. Lee, letter to Lord Acton, 1866
I still do not find it strange "libertarian-types almost-universally defend the Confederacy".
Why would it be strange Lord Acton & Robert E. Lee also sought to "defend the Confederacy"?
They both represented Countries (alhough the CSA was never recognized as a Country by any but themselves) that desired the extinction of the United States of America.
They both represented Countries (alhough the CSA was never recognized as a Country by any but themselves) that desired the extinction of the United States of America.
You are hopeless, and this conservation never accomplishes anything.
If you read what Robert E. Lee said in his letter, do you agree with him? Does the centralization of power tend to make a country "aggressive aboard and despotic at home"? And is secession "the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will"?
You may have heard the saying "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", do you know who said that? Lord Acton.
An American named Lysander Spooner also defended the Confederacy. And Lysander Spooner was one of the greatest abolitionists in the United States. Why?
I'm sure you're aware of the definition of 'Lost Cause' so will not bother here.
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.
the 'derailers' often seem to prefer to attempt to deravel the The Libertarian Civil Rights Paradox rather than discuss the topic of the OP. Go figure. 
