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.
That guy sounds alot like Ron Paul. Sometimes, in order for everyone to have the same rights, force must be used. When one segment of the population is being oppressed, things like "natural law" and the "free market" mean nothing. Sometimes it takes the federal government to get things done.
I’ve argued for years that the Civil Rights Act has enraged Conservatives and Libertarians for years. They absolutely abhor it.
Their position always was that African Americans should simply wait for whites to change their attitudes towards race. Blacks should just keep being highly obsequious and servile and prove to whites that we deserve equal protection under the law. Nevermind our sacrifices and our toil In helping to build and defend this nation.
I have ZERO patience for that argument. I refuse to even consider it. It’s easy to say that we should’ve waited while YOU enjoy the rights of citizenship.
Some conservatives have shown they respect the Civil Rights Act. Many have shown they would have been against it.
I will say this. Had African-Americans "waited", Jim Crow would have kept going. You don't wait for a bully to quit bullying you. Sometimes you have to punch the bully in the nose, and be ready for a fight. The bully intends on being a bully forever. If you disrupt his bullying, he will fight you. Sometimes you have to be ready for a fight. That is how I see Jim Crow. The powers that were, they intended on Jim Crow forever. In the case of Jim Crow, waiting was not going to get things done. When African-Americans said "no more" to Jim Crow, there were those who were ready to kill. There were those who felt "well, if those Blacks are going to get uppity, maybe we ought to kill a few to get the message across". People were willing to die for the rights they should have had in the first place. And this is why the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were needed. It was in response to Jim Crow.
It is sad to hear people say things such as "The Republicans were more for civil rights than the Democrats". Well, the strongest correlation wasn't political party, but region. In both the House and the Senate, more people from the north voted in favor of civil rights legislation than those from the south. In fact, no Republican from the South voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act. And the Republican Party has skeletons in its own closet. Lily White Movement, an anti-Black faction in the Republican Party in the early 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily-white_movement
That guy sounds alot like Ron Paul. Sometimes, in order for everyone to have the same rights, force must be used. When one segment of the population is being oppressed, things like "natural law" and the "free market" mean nothing. Sometimes it takes the federal government to get things done.
As we all know, counting on "free market" and that mumbo-jumbo "natural law" means that you're at the mercy of someone's whims if they want to offer you services or goods that others can enjoy. To heck with that - I have the right to be served like anyone else! Do I have the assurance that I can get a hotel room, a table at a restaurant like anyone else?
Some conservatives have shown they respect the Civil Rights Act. Many have shown they would have been against it.
I will say this. Had African-Americans "waited", Jim Crow would have kept going. You don't wait for a bully to quit bullying you. Sometimes you have to punch the bully in the nose, and be ready for a fight. The bully intends on being a bully forever. If you disrupt his bullying, he will fight you. Sometimes you have to be ready for a fight. That is how I see Jim Crow. The powers that were, they intended on Jim Crow forever. In the case of Jim Crow, waiting was not going to get things done. When African-Americans said "no more" to Jim Crow, there were those who were ready to kill. There were those who felt "well, if those Blacks are going to get uppity, maybe we ought to kill a few to get the message across". People were willing to die for the rights they should have had in the first place. And this is why the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were needed. It was in response to Jim Crow.
Yes. That's why Dr. King called out "mealy-mouthed moderates" who suggested he should tone down his direct action with regards to confronting Jim Crow (Why We Can't Wait).
And even today, there are some really pathetic reactionaries who are talking smack about King and equivocating about taking down monuments or street names named after him in another thread (trying to compare him to Confederates). Punks.
I’ve argued for years that the Civil Rights Act has enraged Conservatives and Libertarians for years. They absolutely abhor it.
Their position always was that African Americans should simply wait for whites to change their attitudes towards race. Blacks should just keep being highly obsequious and servile and prove to whites that we deserve equal protection under the law. Nevermind our sacrifices and our toil In helping to build and defend this nation.
I have ZERO patience for that argument. I refuse to even consider it. It’s easy to say that we should’ve waited while YOU enjoy the rights of citizenship.
It really was unacceptable particularly in a country that had in its Constitution the language "no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws" When in fact, blacks and other minorities were routinely denied their rights and treated as second class citizens. And don't get me started on voting rights either. They were guaranteed to black Americans by the Fifteenth Amendment, but routinely denied them by local governments who found 100 ways to circumvent the law. Thank heavens for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Some maintain there is some personal right or liberty to discriminate if you want too. I call BS on that. Business owners lose money when they fail to serve all customers who want to be served. The only "liberty" involved there is the freedom to lose money. If ever there was a "phony freedom" the freedom to discriminate is that.
It took the civil rights legislation and judges who were willing to enforce that law to bring Jim Crow to an end. If the "free market" had brought discrimination to an end it would have taken 200 years for it to happen. Two hundred years ain't acceptable.
It really was unacceptable particularly in a country that had in its Constitution the language "no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws" When in fact, blacks and other minorities were routinely denied their rights and treated as second class citizens. And don't get me started on voting rights either. They were guaranteed to black Americans by the Fifteenth Amendment, but routinely denied them by local governments who found 100 ways to circumvent the law. Thank heavens for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Some maintain there is some personal right or liberty to discriminate if you want too. I call BS on that. Business owners lose money when they fail to serve all customers who want to be served. The only "liberty" involved there is the freedom to lose money. If ever there was a "phony freedom" the freedom to discriminate is that.
It took the civil rights legislation and judges who were willing to enforce that law to bring Jim Crow to an end. If the "free market" had brought discrimination to an end it would have taken 200 years for it to happen. Two hundred years ain't acceptable.
Correct. The free market was never gonna end Jim Crow just like slavery wasn’t gonna end without a war.
I don’t have that kind of faith in my fellow Americans to do the right thing unless it’s forced down their throats. That’s the story of America as it appertains to black folks.
Oh, there was a thread about libertarians saying that natural law, property rights and the free market should trump anti-discrimination legislation a year back. Wasn't having any of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
And that is the thing. The free market and natural law didn't dismantle Jim Crow. Force dismantled it. "Big Government" as some people call it, took Jim Crow down. Sometimes it takes force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
That guy sounds alot like Ron Paul. Sometimes, in order for everyone to have the same rights, force must be used. When one segment of the population is being oppressed, things like "natural law" and the "free market" mean nothing. Sometimes it takes the federal government to get things done.
Here's a likely reason why he sounds like Ron Paul, & why he's likely a Trump supporter:
Adam Smith to Richard Spencer: Why Libertarians turn to the Alt-Right
Elliot Gulliver-Needham writes on the relatively underexplored trajectory of many 'libertarians' joining the far-right.
Quote:
The fact is that libertarianism has always been a refuge of racism and implicit support for authoritarianism, despite direct contradiction to their supposed ideology. Throughout history, the men who are considered the cornerstone of the right libertarian philosophy supported brutal dictators. Look at Mises’ support of Mussolini, or Hayek and Friedman’s backing of Pinochet. It is clear that the these people have always been willing to put aside ideology for what they see as an end that justifies the means, even in such morally abhorrent cases as supporting Apartheid in South Africa or the Confederacy under the pretence of ‘states rights’. This lingering white supremacy in the libertarian movement carried on beyond the mid twentieth century, into the ideologies of Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. Rothbard himself wrote that “The proper strategy of libertarians and paleos is a strategy of ‘right-wing populism” Essentially, that means appealing to the racism held within the right of American society (not dissimilar to what we see in Donald Trump).
"I was watching Christopher Cantwell before he became known as the crying Nazi , when his chant was ‘taxation is theft’, not ‘Jews will not replace us’. I remember Stefan Molyneux when he was debating whether we should have a government, not whether government should be used to promote eugenics."
“We were all libertarians back in the day. I mean, everybody knows this”
It really was unacceptable particularly in a country that had in its Constitution the language "no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws" When in fact, blacks and other minorities were routinely denied their rights and treated as second class citizens. And don't get me started on voting rights either. They were guaranteed to black Americans by the Fifteenth Amendment, but routinely denied them by local governments who found 100 ways to circumvent the law. Thank heavens for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Some maintain there is some personal right or liberty to discriminate if you want too. I call BS on that. Business owners lose money when they fail to serve all customers who want to be served. The only "liberty" involved there is the freedom to lose money. If ever there was a "phony freedom" the freedom to discriminate is that.
It took the civil rights legislation and judges who were willing to enforce that law to bring Jim Crow to an end. If the "free market" had brought discrimination to an end it would have taken 200 years for it to happen. Two hundred years ain't acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
Correct. The free market was never gonna end Jim Crow just like slavery wasn’t gonna end without a war.
I don’t have that kind of faith in my fellow Americans to do the right thing unless it’s forced down their throats. That’s the story of America as it appertains to black folks.
The same belief system that held that American styled race-based slavery was just gonna end on its own also held that Jim Crow laws were gonna end the same way. That's too much bs for anyone to swallow.
2 landmark SCOTUS cases:
Quote:
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce.
... Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1] outlawing segregation in American schools and public places. One section of the act, Title II, was specifically intended to grant African-Americans full access to public facilities such as hotels, restaurants, and public recreation areas. On the same day, the Supreme Court heard challenges to Title II from a motel owner and from Ollie McClung. Both claimed that the federal government had no right to impose any regulations on small, private businesses. Both ultimately lost.
... The court ruled unanimously that the Civil Rights Act is constitutional and that it was properly applied against Ollie's Barbecue.
... In Section 5 of the decision, the Court affirmed previous decisions that Congress has the authority to regulate local intrastate activities if the activities significantly affect interstate commerce in the aggregate, citing United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., Wickard v. Filburn, Gibbons v. Ogden, and United States v. Darby.
The appellees objected to Congress' approach in determining what affects commerce, the court held, “Where we find that the legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, our investigation is at an end.”
This was the case involving the 'motel owner' mentioned above:
Quote:
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the Commerce Clause gave the U.S. Congress power to force private businesses to abide by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations.
Yes. That's why Dr. King called out "mealy-mouthed moderates" who suggested he should tone down his direct action with regards to confronting Jim Crow (Why We Can't Wait).
And even today, there are some really pathetic reactionaries who are talking smack about King and equivocating about taking down monuments or street names named after him in another thread (trying to compare him to Confederates). Punks.
There are times when being a moderate are just fine. And then there are times when being a moderate just will not do. In terms of the civil rights movement, you pick a side. You're either for it or against it. Trying to play the fence just creates trust problems.
There are individuals who deep down, prefer those Confederates to Dr. King. They are just too mealy-mouthed to come out and admit it.
LOL. "Unappreciative what T's done." I guess a lot of us are "unappreciative." That's a good one though!
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.
also held that Jim Crow laws were gonna end the same way. That's too much bs for anyone to swallow. 
