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.
Surely you can't be as willfully obtuse as your posts indicate? And, surely your understanding of history can't be as woeful as your post implies?
White southerners asserted that they had an individual right not to be forced to sit at a lunch counter, school or public transport with black people. That individual assertion of rights directly conflicted with the right of African Americans to sit at those same lunch counters, schools and public means of transportation.
Whose individual right trumps whose?
Ron Paul's comment, and your clown dance to avoid addressing the question, seems to indicate that the Federal government had no right to interfere with these asserted rights of white individuals, this isn't to say (or the umpteeth time) that Paul or libertarians are FOR discrimination just he and they are oppose to doing anything about it.
First, in comparison to your fellow libertarian, you are beacon of rationality.
As for your recent comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorock99
Ovacotto most libertarians would agree with your statement above in terms of the obviously denial of freedom to African Americans.
I'm glad to here this, although I will hold judgement on the "most".
However, what most libertarians would disagree with you on is your conclusion this is a libertarian conundrum.
Quote:
to suggest we are responsible for the historical or current treatment of African Americans is completely absurd.
Once again, I've never suggested that "libertarians" were responsible for Jim Crow, but what I am arguing is that the very same argument regarding the primacy of individual rights is the same philosophical underpinning for resistance to integration.
Quote:
In terms of "Civil Rights" I think most Libertarians would have been more in favor of congress adding additional language to the 14th and 15th Amendments, the proposing an "Act."
Personally, I think that African Americans had waited long enough for the passage of the Civil Rights Act let alone waiting for the amendment process to run its laborious course.
Quote:
In fact Republicans in 1868-1870 under the 14th and 15th Amendment gave rights to all naturalized American citizens despite previous servitude, color of skin, and etc. Under the constitution African Americans were emancipated citizens of this country,
Thank you for the refresher course on Reconstruction and the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendment. (that was unfair, but that's were my level of frustration is at).
Quote:
so anyone that believes in freedom and upholding the constitution would have advocated for this Amendment to be enforced and carried out by the States.
Getting a simple majority in 1964 was tough enough, thank you very much.
Quote:
I think Ron Paul and most libertarians would be opposed to an "Act" being created and more in favor of directly strengthen the Amendment the Act is derived from!
That's a nice attempt to rehabilitate Rep. Paul's statement, but I will just go with his version for now.
Quote:
This would be a true indication of their willingness to truly respect the "civil rights" of these various groups.
Let's get back on track.
This whole debate is about choice versus force.
Libertarianism is not anti-left or anti-right. Pro-freedom? Yes. You can be a libertarian (social scale) and prefer to be on the right or left (economic scale).
I'm a left leaning libertarian. Left, because I believe in regulations and oversights, and general welfare of the people as an issue that doesn't happen automatically. Libertarian, because I believe in personal freedom.
If you don't choose to abide by the rules of a society what alternative is left to the state?
The individual who harms no one has supremacy over the State.
The rules of our "society" comprise the Constitution, which limits the power of the State, and for obvious reasons: Gangs can't be trusted with unchecked power.
Ron Paul's comment, and your clown dance to avoid addressing the question, seems to indicate that the Federal government had no right to interfere with these asserted rights of white individuals, this isn't to say (or the umpteeth time) that Paul or libertarians are FOR discrimination just he and they are oppose to doing anything about it.
Ovcatto you seem to conveniently miss the point both of us are making. You are attempting to push blame upon libertarians for laws libertarians did not create and laws libertarians simply would not create.
The understanding of how to create an "Act" and actually taking the proper steps to strengthen a constitutional amendment is what is escaping you. An act is certainly not as powerful as actually strengthen the constitutional amendment the act directly derives all its power.
MOST Libertarians would rather see these issues ratified by the states and the language added to the constitutional amendments they are directly associated with. The creation of excess laws that are already expressed on the books is Pauls main disagreement. Enforce the laws that are written into the Constitution. As we have seen with other laws "acts" do nothing to help eliminate advantages, they usually just help further the petitioning of more government advantages. This just furthers divide and provides more politicians with political capital for years and even decades.
White southerners asserted that they had an individual right not to be forced to sit at a lunch counter, school or public transport with black people. That individual assertion of rights directly conflicted with the right of African Americans to sit at those same lunch counters, schools and public means of transportation.
If we are talking about "forced" association I would think that an individual would have to show how such an association, or in this case, proximity had caused a elimination of a right. So I can easily agree with you that there is no right to be free of proximity to another outside of one's own property. So unless they paid for their own buses or schools they have no right to exclude others from occupying that space.
The lunch counter could be a different story however. If a business owner of a restaurant wishes to serve only certain clients that is his choice. For every KKK Diner their could easily be an equivalent Farrakhan Diner. There is no right for anyone to force themselves onto someone else's private property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Whose individual right trumps whose?
I am not sure if you are still talking about the above situation, but that is a situation where people were claiming to have a right which does not exist. So it does not really address the question above. What two individual's rights are in conflict? I am trying to envision this hypothetical conflict that you seem to be worried about.
I would think that if two people were in conflict given the same "right" it should not be a "right" for either of them. If you give me a clear example where one person's right is in direct conflict with another's then I will be able to understand what you are talking about. Otherwise, all I can say is that all rights being equal, the initiator of force to destroy a right is always in the wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Ron Paul's comment, and your clown dance to avoid addressing the question, seems to indicate that the Federal government had no right to interfere with these asserted rights of white individuals, this isn't to say (or the umpteeth time) that Paul or libertarians are FOR discrimination just he and they are oppose to doing anything about it.
Clown dance? Is that nice? No need to be hostile.
I have addressed the notion of an asserted right above. The act of asserting a right that does not exist and will harm another can be seen as an initiation of force which should be punished. Also, as above, I am still trying to think of the hypothetical conflict between equal rights of two individuals where an initiator of force cannot be identified and justifiably punished.
First, in comparison to your fellow libertarian, you are beacon of rationality.
As for your recent comments:
I'm glad to here this, although I will hold judgment on the "most".
However, what most libertarians would disagree with you on is your conclusion this is a libertarian conundrum.
Once again, I've never suggested that "libertarians" were responsible for Jim Crow, but what I am arguing is that the very same argument regarding the primacy of individual rights is the same philosophical underpinning for resistance to integration.
Getting a simple majority in 1964 was tough enough, thank you very much.
That's a nice attempt to rehabilitate Rep. Paul's statement, but I will just go with his version for now.
.
Ovcatto, I'm coming to the defense of Irspows (not that it is needed because i think he's clearly articulated his point). He is by no means advocating discrimination or supporting its existence. What both he and I have made clear is we are not for any legislation that seeks to advantage any citizens over another. We are also not for any individuals that would coerce, infringe, trample, or impede on the freedoms of any other law abiding citizen. This is not only limited to individuals you happen to agree with this extends to individuals who you may disagree with. Look racist, sexist, homophobes, and anyone else that practices discrimination is a vile person, but if their dislike for different individuals is kept in private and never extends or rears its ugly face in public. How can you legislate it a crime? Unless the person blows up churches, kills abortion doctors, or commits any other act of aggression upon a law abiding citizen, then attempting to legislate my opinion or beliefs upon them is equally as wrong as the beliefs they may have in the privacy of their own home. Tolerance in a libertarian society is a two way street as long as individuals follow the rule of not infringing on other law abiding citizens right to freedom. The minute they cross that line, they become subject to harsh penalty under law!
Does that make it clear? The main point is discrimination from a libertarian position is morally wrong no matter what sort of discrimination it is or entails. Our goal is to make sure we do not empower discrimination and we extend freedom to all equally. Freedom to all is a given right in a libertarian society and no person is more deserving or less deserving of such freedom until they violate another's freedom.
"However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty" - Ron Paul
As a side note i think this actually states exactly he disagrees with the act.
Do you believe the Civil Rights Act has brought the races closer together?
This was the state mission of the act, so i think his disagreement with the failures of the goal of the act is perfectly justified.
Think about this we don't have gay marriage on the books, but yet most people think it is a morally acceptable to allow them to get married.
Now, did a legislative law make people more accepting or tolerant of homosexuals or did the opinions of the general population and their view on freedom shift?
Okay, if you say so. It is great how the Raw Deal and The Dark Society have saved us from the evils of capitalism. We are all living in a perfect world now boy. Hooray! Now we have evil big business with the added bonus of evil big government too! Woohoo!
We arent living in a perfect world, just one that is better then true free market capitalism. Its still lame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
I could care less what "rights" are "provided" to me by law. My natural freedoms are beyond any man-made law. I only follow one law if I have a choice in the matter. That is to do anything I want that is not an initiation of aggression towards others. Live and let live. I am not a closet tyrant like most people.
You are free to be imprisoned then for not following the laws legislated on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
Capitalism is theft? Has anyone forced you to work for someone else in particular? Have any businesses stolen money from you for services that you did not receive? Oh wait, that is what our "noble" government does.
Those who do not have, are forced through economic duress to work for those who do. This creates a completely one sided "agreement". If you want to believe a labor contract is entered in to on ones "own free will", you are free to make that error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
That is where all the poor people have gone. I was wondering why they didn't exist anymore. Thank God, er Godvernment, for the Welfare State which has eliminated the "evils" of capitalism.
Poor people do exist, except, they actually have food and housing in most cases. If you want to get a good picture of what the poor of a true "free market" look like, go read about New York City in the late 1700's to 1900.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
There is nothing that I can say to someone who supports preferential law if they can not see the hypocrisy between it and the concept of freedom.
Actually, I dont support preferential law. I believe it is neccessary to counterbalance free market capitalism though. I believe in the complete removal of the ability to own means of production, which makes it impossible for someone to enslave another. COMMUNISM is the only system that ensures freedom for all. Any other system simply creates slave classes, especially one based in capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
Yep, our benevolent dictators have done a real good job of keeping the shylocks and money-changers from enslaving us all...
No, actually they havent, but they have done a pretty good job of throwing out a life raft to the people that have been bulldozed.
The rules of our "society" comprise the Constitution, which limits the power of the State, and for obvious reasons: Gangs can't be trusted with unchecked power.
We don't live in a perfect world. There will always be "gangs" in the quest for more power. Having said that, and to repeat what I said earlier, libertarianism is measured along social scale, not on economic. You can be a left leaning or right leaning libertarian.
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.
No need to be hostile.
