Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I Apologize to My Fellow Americans
#21
(01-27-2017, 05:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 05:02 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 04:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 02:23 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 08:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: As far as I can tell, now you think the alt right is evil.  That's not being tolerant; it's just redirecting your intolerances to a different group..
I am curious. In what way do you see the alt right not being evil? This would include the likes of the KKK, neo nazis, white supremacists keep in mind. I am very curious as to what you think about that.

The folks you mention make up less than 0.1% of the alt right.  Characterizing the entire alt right as evil on that basis is like calling the entire left in the US evil because they include a few thousand Communist Party members.
Ah actually when you look into what alt right supports at its core it is not a good image nor a good message. If you have any links that prove them wrong go for it. Alt right (going by its core message) is not mainstream right wing. it is far left ahem like communists are far left.

What the alt right supports at its core is the interests of American citizens over the interests of the rest of the world.  I can see how those from the rest of the world might feel it is "not a good image nor a good message" - no doubt you'd prefer the US promote the interests of the rest of the world over those of American citizens - but it's not evil.

"no doubt you'd prefer the US promote the interests of the rest of the world over those of American citizens - but it's not evil." ah actually I will have to stop you right there because that is totally inaccurate and you judging me with no evidence to back your claim up. Hear it from the kiwi's mouth....I am for all Americans rights. Despite being a kiwi I do care about EVERY Americans rights. My concern is how to consider ALL Americans rights without infringing on others rights as well. THAT is my concern....take it or dismiss it.

I have yet to read anything related to the alt right where it says it cares about ALL Americans and that is what bothers me.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#22
and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#23
Tara,

Out of curiosity, what people have you been reading when you talk about what the alt-right supports "at its core" or "its core message"?

And I don't mean give me an assertion of what you think it is, I'm curious what your source(s) are on its "core message".
Reply
#24
The John Birch Society, long considered extreme and ludicrous to conservatives, has stayed as far to the Right as possible without delving into calls for genocide (including enslavement or extermination) except perhaps against Communists. The Republican Party has gone so far to the Right that it and the Birch Society are now hard to distinguish.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#25
(01-27-2017, 09:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The John Birch Society, long considered extreme and ludicrous to conservatives, has stayed as far to the Right as possible without delving into calls for genocide (including enslavement or extermination) except perhaps against Communists. The Republican Party has gone so far to the Right that it and the Birch Society are now hard to distinguish.

I have heard that both left and right wing have become more extreme over the years. Not sure if that is true or not.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#26
(01-27-2017, 05:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I don't view the evil/ignorant ones (the KKK, neo Nazi's, white supremacists) as being much of a threat to us today. America defeated the Nazi's in World War II. America defeated White Supremacy in the American Civil War. Yes, they can be dangerous as we have seen recently and they can be a social menace as we have seen here but they aren't a major threat to America. BTW, America is a collective too. What the Trump election told me was that hard core America is big and powerful. Blue America should be concerned because it means the time of silly political games and self centered politics (identity politics/ greedy self serving politicians) is/should be over.

You are touching on one aspect of what I call the 'arrow of progress.'  Those favoring the superiority of the whites and maintaining their superior place are of questionable merit.  Those seeking equality for minorities by race, culture and gender are winning a very slow and intermittent victory.  In general, yes, equality has in the long run been making advances over supremacists.

I find myself amused that you can flip it over in your mind, calling the supremacists 'core America' while those working towards equality have been mislabeled as pursing 'identity politics'.  My thought is that those favoring equality went a little too far too fast with a black president, pressure to ban official use of Confederate symbols, efforts on behalf of latinos, muslims and other cultures currently the victims of the supremacists, and attempts to mainline non-traditional gender partnerships.  The supremacists have recently seen too much progress towards equality.  They are ticked off at the moment.  There is a supremacist backlash in progress.  This happens from time to time in America.  Work towards equality will be at a pause for a time.  While I find this offensive, I do not believe the current backlash will continue indefinitely.  After a time of ugliness, work towards equality will resume.

I tend to agree that the ever changing balance between the supremacists and those pursing equality is not a major threat to America.  The current conflicts will not match the intensity of the Civil War, Jim Crow or the mid 20th Century civil rights movement.  The ebb and flow of prejudice has been part of our history, be it an ugly unnecessary part.  It has not gone away, and will only go away with much time and much effort.

I can also second a disapproval of self serving politicians.  I just don't see either faction as having a monopoly on them.  I would as soon focus more on draining the swamp,  less less on equality / supremacy, at least for the moment.  Those favoring equality have had major victories recently, and will have to endure the backlash.  Alas, focusing on draining the swamp doesn't seem to be in the interests of those who prefer living in swamps.  I anticipate continued effort towards fanning the flames of prejudice.
Reply
#27
(01-27-2017, 10:02 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 09:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The John Birch Society, long considered extreme and ludicrous to conservatives, has stayed as far to the Right as possible without delving into calls for genocide (including enslavement or extermination) except perhaps against Communists. The Republican Party has gone so far to the Right that it and the Birch Society are now hard to distinguish.

I have heard that both left and right wing have become more extreme over the years. Not sure if that is true or not.

There is certainly less willingness to compromise.  Yes, prejudice that was accepted as normal in FDR's time would generate outrage today.  The civil rights and women's movements since the Awakening reflect vastly different expectations among the modern blue population.  Aspects of red culture have been dragged in the direction of equality quite some distance.  Given how stubborn and irrational cultures can act, it shouldn't be surprising that they are digging in and refusing to budge for a time.  In this, I'm not speaking only of the red culture.  The blue belief in equality is stubborn too.
Reply
#28
(01-27-2017, 06:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.

A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#29
(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 06:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.

A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Prior to the awakening, especially in the south, overt blatant prejudice was hard wired into the culture.  People of color could not stay in many hotels, eat at many restaurants, use many sanitary facilities, drink at certain water bubblers, etc...  The sit in at the Woolworth lunch counter where blacks were refused service became a symbol of this sort of behavior.  The Supreme Court and various laws passed by Congress made this sort of overt prejudice illegal.  Many have come to understand that if one offers a service to the public, one has to provide that service to the People.  

The law can be rigid.  Once a principle has been laid down, one should not make exceptions.  There are many who will say denying service at a lunch counter due to race is different than denying bakery goods to someone with different sexual preferences.  Others do not see the difference.  I'm one of the latter.  Prejudice is prejudice.  Bigotry is bigotry.  The legal principles favoring equality set down during the awakening should be extended.

In practice, wearing the bigots down is a long slow tedious process.  It happens in fits and starts.  After a wave of progress, the progressives are tired of fighting and the bigots get stubborn.  One celebrates the Confederate flag coming down, the rainbow flag going up.  A new status quo is defined, and for a time might be accepted.  The bigots will accept that certain lines have been breached, but cling to the next line down for a decade or more.  The US is currently going through a progressives tired bigots stubborn phase.

Now, I would disagree that Gary Johnson is the only libertarian who is not a bigot.  It is possible to believe in the financial notion of unencumbered free markets and the political principle of small non-interfering government without being a bigot.  In this, I believe Galen should speak for himself.

But I'm tired of and disgusted by the double think.  The current generation of bigots is openly promoting a right to practice overt segregation.  There is no such right.  When such a bogus right is advocated, it is time to call a bigot a bigot.

[Image: flags.jpg]
Reply
#30
(01-28-2017, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 06:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.

A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Now, I would disagree that Gary Johnson is the only libertarian who is not a bigot.  It is possible to believe in the financial notion of unencumbered free markets and the political principle of small non-interfering government without being a bigot.  In this, I believe Galen should speak for himself.

You really don't understand do you?  Libertarianism recognizes the right of free association which also means that people have the right to choose who they don't associate with.  There is no double think involved here.  It is simply not the government's place to tell people who they may or may not associate with.  If people truly are bigoted then no amount of external force will change this.  Indeed, it will create resentment that will eventually express itself in a violent manner most likely.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#31
(01-28-2017, 08:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 06:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.

A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Now, I would disagree that Gary Johnson is the only libertarian who is not a bigot.  It is possible to believe in the financial notion of unencumbered free markets and the political principle of small non-interfering government without being a bigot.  In this, I believe Galen should speak for himself.

You really don't understand do you?  Libertarianism recognizes the right of free association which also means that people have the right to choose who they don't associate with.  There is no double think involved here.  It is simply not the government's place to tell people who they may or may not associate with.  If people truly are bigoted then no amount of external force will change this.  Indeed, it will create resentment that will eventually express itself in a violent manner most likely.

I'm not particularly an expert in libertarianism. I guess I'll have to ask others on the forum who think of themselves as libertarian to confirm or deny Galen's assertion. Does libertarian thought necessarily demand the right to discriminate? Is bigotry an inherent aspect of libertarianism?

I do understand that forcing bigots to respect the rights and equality of others is a long slow tedious process. It will indeed create resentment. However, it is part of US culture to push the long slow tedious movement towards equality. Over the years, the United States has applied external force to the Confederates, the KKK, Hitler's Nazis, the segregationists of the mid 20th Century, those who believed in a cultural imperative to keep females in a inferior role, and more recently in those with irrational prejudiced against those with non-traditional gender relationships.

The bigots of any era will be able to convince themselves of their inherent superiority and their right to keep others in their place. Sometimes, the places the minorities belonged were in gas chambers or dangling from southern trees. Those who object to such hatred and bigotry have for centuries been applying 'external force' and have made tremendous changes. This generation's bigots seem unable to comprehend this history, which makes them no different from prior generations of bigots. As a fundamentalist cannot allow himself to comprehend evolution, a bigot will engage in double think to believe their own hatreds and prejudices are somehow different than what has come before.
Reply
#32
Whew, lot of Whiggish historical assumptions in this thread, that somehow the norms, mores, and values of early 21st century white Yuppies are hardwired into the fabric of the universe.  Rolleyes

The libertarian argument is that you have the right to associate with who you want (free association), and that nobody else has the right to abridge this, no matter the ideological justifications waved around.  The only role of the government is to prevent force and fraud, not wrong-think.

Quote:Is bigotry an inherent aspect of libertarianism?

I mean, really Bob?  Would you like to dump any more poison in that well before continuing this discussion?  Wink
Reply
#33
(01-28-2017, 09:57 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: Whew, lot of Whiggish historical assumptions in this thread, that somehow the norms, mores, and values of early 21st century white Yuppies are hardwired into the fabric of the universe.  Rolleyes

The libertarian argument is that you have the right to associate with who you want (free association), and that nobody else has the right to abridge this, no matter the ideological justifications waved around.  The only role of the government is to prevent force and fraud, not wrong-think.

Quote:Is bigotry an inherent aspect of libertarianism?

I mean, really Bob?  Would you like to dump any more poison in that well before continuing this discussion?  Wink

I would go back to the Enlightenment rather than to the Whigs.  I see the many recent S&H crises in Anglo American civilization are moving things from the Agricultural Age pattern of autocracy, absolute values, religious thought, hierarchical class privilege and heavily militarized government towards the Industrial Age pattern of democracy, scientific thought, economic centered government, equality and human rights.  I see nothing to be ashamed of in observing and advocating such transitions.  The world has been moving in a consistent and to my mind favorable direction.  

Consistent over a long period of time doesn't mean forever, but I don't see the most recent children of the Enlightenment backing down.  The values of Jefferson's self evident truths are still flowing strongly.  It's not just the whites or the yuppies or the early 21st Century.  For many and for a long time, the Enlightenment principles have been important.  I wouldn't underestimate or lightly dismiss them.

And, sure, yes, I'll poison the well.  Can you or anyone make a solid distinction between prejudice against blacks at the Woolworth lunch counter in the middle 20th century and prejudice against someone with non-traditional gender preference in a hypothetical modern bakery?  To me, segregation is segregation, bigotry is bigotry, and doublethink to try to hide this needs to be called out.  In either case, one is denying a service due to prejudice.  Does libertarian 'right to free association' imply those running hotels and restaurants in the south in the mid 20th century had a right not to associate with blacks?  Does the government not have the power to enforce the Bill of Rights?  Have you read the Constitution recently?  Hint: the founding fathers were children of the Enlightenment even more than 21st century white yuppies.

Those thinking the bigots are 'core America' need to be challenged in said belief.
Reply
#34
(01-27-2017, 06:28 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 05:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 05:02 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 04:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 02:23 PM)taramarie Wrote: I am curious. In what way do you see the alt right not being evil? This would include the likes of the KKK, neo nazis, white supremacists keep in mind. I am very curious as to what you think about that.

The folks you mention make up less than 0.1% of the alt right.  Characterizing the entire alt right as evil on that basis is like calling the entire left in the US evil because they include a few thousand Communist Party members.
Ah actually when you look into what alt right supports at its core it is not a good image nor a good message. If you have any links that prove them wrong go for it. Alt right (going by its core message) is not mainstream right wing. it is far left ahem like communists are far left.

What the alt right supports at its core is the interests of American citizens over the interests of the rest of the world.  I can see how those from the rest of the world might feel it is "not a good image nor a good message" - no doubt you'd prefer the US promote the interests of the rest of the world over those of American citizens - but it's not evil.

"no doubt you'd prefer the US promote the interests of the rest of the world over those of American citizens - but it's not evil." ah actually I will have to stop you right there because that is totally inaccurate and you judging me with no evidence to back your claim up. Hear it from the kiwi's mouth....I am for all Americans rights. Despite being a kiwi I do care about EVERY Americans rights. My concern is how to consider ALL Americans rights without infringing on others rights as well. THAT is my concern....take it or dismiss it.

I have yet to read anything related to the alt right where it says it cares about ALL Americans and that is what bothers me.

So what does "all Americans" mean to you?  Does it include illegal immigrants?  I was specific about "citizens" in "American citizens" for a reason.
Reply
#35
Quote:I would go back to the Enlightenment rather than to the Whigs.  I see the many recent S&H crises in Anglo American civilization are moving things from the Agricultural Age pattern of autocracy, absolute values, religious thought, hierarchical class privilege and heavily militarized government towards the Industrial Age pattern of democracy, scientific thought, economic centered government, equality and human rights.  I see nothing to be ashamed of in observing and advocating such transitions.  The world has been moving in a consistent and to my mind favorable direction. 
Bob, Bob, Bob, you're embarrassing yourself twice over here.  The phrase "Whig History"  means precisely that "The world has been moving in a consistent and to my mind favorable direction".  And trying to draw a distinction between the Whigs and the Enlightenment means that you clearly know little of either.  The Whigs WERE the Party of Enlightenment principles.  


Quote:Consistent over a long period of time doesn't mean forever, but I don't see the most recent children of the Enlightenment backing down.  The values of Jefferson's self evident truths are still flowing strongly.  It's not just the whites or the yuppies or the early 21st Century.  For many and for a long time, the Enlightenment principles have been important.  I wouldn't underestimate or lightly dismiss them.


The world from 1500-1914 moved consistently in the direction of white hegemony, and yet that has clearly fallen by the wayside, hasn't it?  Communism and eugenics were popular amongst your ideological predecessors  as well, and thought to have a historical inevitability of their own.  The fact that you no doubt think that those things were temporary aberrations from the true path of "history's direction" as defined by your mores now is to be guilty of precisely the belief in "the norms, mores, and values of early 21st century white Yuppies are hardwired into the fabric of the universe" that I accused you of earlier.


Quote:And, sure, yes, I'll poison the well.  Can you or anyone make a solid distinction between prejudice against blacks at the Woolworth lunch counter in the middle 20th century and prejudice against someone with non-traditional gender preference in a hypothetical modern bakery?  To me, segregation is segregation, bigotry is bigotry, and doublethink to try to hide this needs to be called out.  In either case, one is denying a service due to prejudice.  Does libertarian 'right to free association' imply those running hotels and restaurants in the south in the mid 20th century had a right not to associate with blacks?  Does the government not have the power to enforce the Bill of Rights?  Have you read the Constitution recently?  Hint: the founding fathers were children of the Enlightenment even more than 21st century white yuppies.

You asked for the Libertarian view of the subject and I gave it to you.  It too flows from the Enlightenment, indeed, it is simply a derivation of an older strain of Enlightenment principles, that of Classical/Manchester liberalism.

I like that you acknowledge that you are engaging in extreme partisanship and fallacious reasoning.  The fact that you think those things are justified in the pursuit of the cause du jour is precisely the example of "illiberal liberalism" that people like Jonathan Chait have derided.

You mention the Bill of Rights.  Alright, point to the amendment in said Bill that supports your position.  
Reply
#36
(01-27-2017, 06:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.

Who lacks rights in that case, in your opinion?  The right of the baker not to have to sell a cake with a congratulatory message she doesn't believe in, or the right of the lesbian couple to be able to get a cake from whoever they want?  Does a neonazi have the right to buy a cake from a Jewish baker with a swastika on it?
Reply
#37
(01-27-2017, 11:53 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 10:02 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 09:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The John Birch Society, long considered extreme and ludicrous to conservatives, has stayed as far to the Right as possible without delving into calls for genocide (including enslavement or extermination) except perhaps against Communists. The Republican Party has gone so far to the Right that it and the Birch Society are now hard to distinguish.

I have heard that both left and right wing have become more extreme over the years. Not sure if that is true or not.

There is certainly less willingness to compromise.  Yes, prejudice that was accepted as normal in FDR's time would generate outrage today.  The civil rights and women's movements since the Awakening reflect vastly different expectations among the modern blue population.  Aspects of red culture have been dragged in the direction of equality quite some distance.  Given how stubborn and irrational cultures can act, it shouldn't be surprising that they are digging in and refusing to budge for a time.  In this, I'm not speaking only of the red culture.  The blue belief in equality is stubborn too.

What this fails to distinguish is the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.  It has always been the red culture that champions equality of opportunity; it was the Democrats who fought the civil rights movement most strongly when that was what the civil rights movement meant.

Once they had lost on the civil rights movement, the blue culture, unable to comprehend the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome, focused on forcing outcomes to be the same irrespective of fairness from an individual standpoint.  LBJ, who like many on the left truly believed that blacks were fundamentally inferior to whites, redefined affirmative action to mean discrimination against whites, because he thought that without favored treatment, blacks could never attain equality.

This is, of course, fought by the red culture, which believes that all races are fully capable of achieving equality on their own, given the opportunity, and should do so.
Reply
#38
(01-28-2017, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 06:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.

A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Prior to the awakening, especially in the south, overt blatant prejudice was hard wired into the culture.  People of color could not stay in many hotels, eat at many restaurants, use many sanitary facilities, drink at certain water bubblers, etc...  The sit in at the Woolworth lunch counter where blacks were refused service became a symbol of this sort of behavior.  The Supreme Court and various laws passed by Congress made this sort of overt prejudice illegal.  Many have come to understand that if one offers a service to the public, one has to provide that service to the People.

This wasn't because the businesses wanted to segregate nonwhites, though.  It was because the Democrats had passed laws requiring segregation.  Most businesses would have preferred not to have to go to the expense of separate facilities.
Reply
#39
(01-28-2017, 11:28 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 06:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.

A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Prior to the awakening, especially in the south, overt blatant prejudice was hard wired into the culture.  People of color could not stay in many hotels, eat at many restaurants, use many sanitary facilities, drink at certain water bubblers, etc...  The sit in at the Woolworth lunch counter where blacks were refused service became a symbol of this sort of behavior.  The Supreme Court and various laws passed by Congress made this sort of overt prejudice illegal.  Many have come to understand that if one offers a service to the public, one has to provide that service to the People.

This wasn't because the businesses wanted to segregate nonwhites, though.  It was because the Democrats had passed laws requiring segregation.  Most businesses would have preferred not to have to go to the expense of separate facilities.

Do you have a source on that?  From all accounts I've red on the time period, bigotry far outweighed profits on this issue.  One followed the tradition of segregation or one lost one's white business.  The desire to keep bigot business was a much more dominant economic motivation than the cost of maintaining the extra facilities.

Yes, it was Democrats that ran the south during Jim Crow days.  This was before JFK and LBJ actively sought out the black vote by pushing black issues, and Nixon responded with the Southern Strategy.  Once upon a time, the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow and Tammany Hall style corrupt big city machine government.  The Republicans were the party of Gilded Age robber barons.  Lots of bad options were available in that time.  Things have changed, but not enough.
Reply
#40
(01-28-2017, 08:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 08:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 06:30 PM)taramarie Wrote: and when i say infringe on others rights i mean other Americans rights. Say in the case of the religious baker who did not want to serve gays. That is what i mean. But dismiss me if you want. I know what i stand for.

A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Now, I would disagree that Gary Johnson is the only libertarian who is not a bigot.  It is possible to believe in the financial notion of unencumbered free markets and the political principle of small non-interfering government without being a bigot.  In this, I believe Galen should speak for himself.

You really don't understand do you?  Libertarianism recognizes the right of free association which also means that people have the right to choose who they don't associate with.  There is no double think involved here.  It is simply not the government's place to tell people who they may or may not associate with.  If people truly are bigoted then no amount of external force will change this.  Indeed, it will create resentment that will eventually express itself in a violent manner most likely.

I'm not particularly an expert in libertarianism.  I guess I'll have to ask others on the forum who think of themselves as libertarian to confirm or deny Galen's assertion.  Does libertarian thought necessarily demand the right to discriminate?  Is bigotry an inherent aspect of libertarianism?

Everyone demands the right to discriminate, not just libertarians.  No one thinks they should be denied a choice in the race of the person they marry.  No one thinks that gays should be required to accept dates from straight people and vice versa.  In those cases, everyone accepts the libertarian belief in the right of free association.

I think most strict libertarians would tend to side with Galen on this issue:  people should be allowed to conduct business with who they want, without government intervention.  Without laws passed by the state requiring segregation, probably all libertarians believe that competition would have put businesses wasting space on segregated lunch counters out of business, in favor of more efficient businesses that used a single lunch counter for all their customers.

Personally I'm more toward the minarchist side and further away from the pure anarchocapitalist side.  While I agree that things would most likely work out fine under Galen's model, I'm okay with a local government - under the fiction that the government is a voluntary organization - having licensing laws that require businesses to serve all customers.

However, I'm not okay with the government violating first amendment rights by requiring the bakers to put a swastika or a congratulatory message for a gay couple on the cake if they don't want to.  The customer who wants those things on his cake can go to a like minded baker, or buy a blank cake and put the decoration on himself.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Americans Remain Eligible for Targeted Killing, White House Clarifies nebraska 0 627 01-17-2018, 12:37 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Rep. Justin Amash loses fights to limit government spying on Americans nebraska 0 392 01-12-2018, 10:39 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Report: Americans view Trump White House as the most corrupt government institution nebraska 0 552 01-11-2018, 08:39 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Americans pessimistic about Trump, country: AP-NORC Poll nebraska 0 514 01-05-2018, 08:56 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Americans Remain Eligible for Targeted Killing, White House Clarifies nebraska 0 490 12-27-2017, 04:01 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Americans and business being driven away by taxes, regulations nebraska 0 478 12-25-2017, 09:07 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war taramarie 25 9,168 10-17-2016, 11:21 PM
Last Post: Ragnarök_62
  Americans Aren't Buying Donald Trump's Immigration Rhetoric, Polls Show naf140230 7 3,819 09-22-2016, 11:33 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Millions of Ordinary Americans Support Trump. Here's Why. taramarie 71 22,176 07-30-2016, 11:59 PM
Last Post: MillsT_98

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)