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 government can't end racism, only a change in social attitudes can end racism. No one's ever become less discriminatory in their mindset on account of the law.
What about you, though? You said you're a libertarian. Would you repeal the Civil Rights Act today, 2010, and give the market free reign?
What free market - we have corporatism today
NO I would not repeal the Civil Rights Act today, but I would repeal Defense of Marriage Act.
This is what Rand Paul said:
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years." -
Then you have Libertarian "Stossel" - though I sometimes wonder about him
In the simple sense, Stossel has a valid point. But he too, falls short. You have to define, what is truly a Private business. It could not include anything that involves the Commerce Clause. Could not be any company that sold Public Stock. It could not be any company that had public anything.
STOSSEL: "Private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist"
Rand Paul is a Tea Party Republican Candidate. The Tea Party movement states they want to go back to "our founding fathers", the Constitution, etc and they mention "God a lot". Now that sounds like the Constitution Party,
to me. Where Rand Paul began to confuse folks, is his
neglect to know the difference between an individual doing private things and a Private business engaged in PUBLIC THINGS.
This present debacle can be owned by the Tea Party. If it is their agenda to try to repeal parts of the Civil Rights Act, it is their right. Yep, they have the right to be racist, just as Stossel said
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF KENTUCKY REITERATES: RAND PAUL IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky again reiterated today that Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.
“I have heard Rand Paul speak at TEA Party events, and I can assure you that his positions are that of a Republican,” said LPKY Chairman Ken Moellman. “While the GOP is going through an identity crisis, the Libertarian Party has stood firm upon the same principles since its founding.”
“As head of the membership committee, I assure you that [Paul] has never been a Libertarian,” said Ronald Seiter, Louisville native and Libertarian Party of Kentucky Vice Chairman. “He has neither signed our statement of principles, nor contributed to the Party in any way.”
The Libertarian Party agrees with portions of both the Democratic and Republican Party platforms; though, not always for the same reasons. The ‘non-aggression principle’ guides the Libertarian Party. Signing an oath to adhere to that principle, along with annual dues, is a requirement for full membership in the Party or to run as one of its candidates.
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky will begin to announce its 2010 candidates for office around the state in the next few months. Kentucky law creates separate procedures for anyone not running as a Democrat or Republican. “That shouldn’t be a surprise. They wrote the rules to keep others out. But the political atmosphere has changed, people are tired of politics as usual,” Moellman said. “And I think we’re going to have some very good results in November.
Once again you are the one rewriting history. One can't say this would've happened or that woud'e happened. It's all speculation.
Blacks were better off where there wern't Jim Crow laws. All we can do is assume from that is had there not been Jim Crow laws anywhere then blacks would've been better off everywhere.
And lynching is irrelevant to the free market. I don't know why you bring it up. Lynching has nothing to do with economics.
The civil rights act is unecessary because the free market doesn't discriminate. Employers want to know one thing. Who can best do the job? They could care less about what a person looks like.
And when I go and buy something I don't care who made it or what the clerk looks like or who owns the company. I want to know if the thing works and what is the cost. Everyone else is like that too.
The free market is nothing more than voluntary trading of goods and services between individuals. It's not some evil entity out to get black people. And in every case the more economic freedom people have the wealthier they are. Even the poor people in free market economies are better off than people centrally planned ones.
The free market gave us the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and the computer revolution. It used to be parents out lived their kids. Now kids out live their parents. That is only because of capitalism.
This is a specious argument. Where are the examples of white business owners who opposed the Jim Crow laws because they thought these laws prevented them from expanding their market to include blacks? Going by your logic, there should have been thousands of white business owners in the South who protested the Jim Crow laws driven purely by the profit motive. Instead, what we saw were white business owners beating up and humiliating their "potential customers" - the blacks - who would have patronized their businesses and lavished them with profits.
What I said is we don't know what would have happened because the free market wasn't allowed to operate.
And in places that it was (relatively speaking) blacks were better off. The only assumption one could make is that economic freedom is a better solution than non economic freedom.
The free market was in operation.
All over the North, in cities and states without Jim Crow laws, black people couldn't buy or rent houses in segregated cities. Black real estate agents were not even eligible to be Realtors, and they and their black clients were locked out of large segments of the FREE MARKET. By the operation of the FREE MARKET the deeds of many parcels of real estate (including a home owned by William Rehnquist) carried a covenant prohibiting the property from ever being sold to black people or Jews.
There were stores black people couldn't shop in, restaurants they couldn't eat in. There were many employers that would only employ white people, or would never promote black people.
You pretend to think that all these things are impossible because the FREE MARKET cures all ills, but this is simply a ridiculous proposition.
In reality, no matter what you people say, deep down I don't believe that you have any objection to the well-established and deeply entrenched patterns of segregation and denial of economic opportunity and liberty that existed until the civil rights legislation of the 1960's began to dismantle them.
If I am wrong, you should just know that your preferred approach of simply allowing those with economic power do whatever they wand was demonstrated not to have the effect you claim it would inevitably have had.
The bottom line is, you can not GIVE special rights to any group of people without TAKING rights away from another group. The TAKING of rights is improper, immoral, and illegal.
Nobody but a white racist would ever argue that passing a law that says a black person is entitled as a matter of law to go into any business establishment in the country and conduct the type of business transaction there that is the SOLE PURPOSE for the existence of that establishment is giving them a special right.
...and like all politicians Paul has his own quirks and personal views which do not represent an entire movement, political party or supporters, and probably even people on his own staff.
NO I would not repeal the Civil Rights Act today, but I would repeal Defense of Marriage Act.
This is what Rand Paul said:
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years." -
Then you have Libertarian "Stossel" - though I sometimes wonder about him
In the simple sense, Stossel has a valid point. But he too, falls short. You have to define, what is truly a Private business. It could not include anything that involves the Commerce Clause. Could not be any company that sold Public Stock. It could not be any company that had public anything.
STOSSEL: "Private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist"
Rand Paul is a Tea Party Republican Candidate. The Tea Party movement states they want to go back to "our founding fathers", the Constitution, etc and they mention "God a lot". Now that sounds like the Constitution Party,
to me. Where Rand Paul began to confuse folks, is his
neglect to know the difference between an individual doing private things and a Private business engaged in PUBLIC THINGS.
This present debacle can be owned by the Tea Party. If it is their agenda to try to repeal parts of the Civil Rights Act, it is their right. Yep, they have the right to be racist, just as Stossel said
We already have racism being practiced in this country, the NAACP gives out scholarship to people of specific races, and not other races. This is clearly racist, and yet we allow it, so what Paul was saying is already taking place as we speak.
You pretend to think that all these things are impossible because the FREE MARKET cures all ills, but this is simply a ridiculous proposition.
Exactly.
“I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow,” Mr. Buckley said in 2004. “I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.”
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.
