I Apologize to My Fellow Americans

[Marypoza]

(01-29-2017, 07:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 12:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with.  I would recommend Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard which is a very good history of Colonial America through to the early Federal period.  It was actually very well received by historians at the time an well worth your time to read.

I have to differ with you here a bit.  Segregation laws certainly infringed on rights of free association.  Miscegenation laws, which were not limited to the South, were perhaps the most egregious examples, and incidentally show that the government doesn't distinguish between "private" behavior and "public" behavior the way that Bob personally does.

Classical liberalism was indeed the guiding philosophy under which the US was founded; however, it ceased to be the guiding philosophy in the early 20th century with the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments.

Nitpick.  I agree entirely that the 16th, 17th and 18th amendment marked a significant break in guiding philosophy.  However, at the end of Reconstruction, at the beginning of Jim Crow, the US Supreme Court essentially nullified the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments.  I would suggest this should count as another significant break, another change in the guiding philosophy.  I'd also nominate Thurgood Marshall's efforts in the mid 20th Century to restore the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments as another significant break.

On other threads dealing with other issues I have argued that the Supreme Court ought to honor the wording of the text and the intent of the authors rather than legislating from the bench or applying modern political objectives as trumping rule of law.  I might be the only vaguely blue person on the board who sympathized with Scalia.  I developed this attitude when researching the Jim Crow era Supreme Court cases.  A handful of old men turned the law and the country upside down.

Race has played a large role in US legal theory and precedent.  A huge role.  I suspect there is a conspiracy to avoid examination of the Jim Crow court as the period discredits the Supreme Court as an institution.  I feel that way, anyway.  

Anyway, race and tidal changes in Supreme Court precedent and philosophy are a hot button issues for me.

-- wait a sec, isn't one of those the income tax amendment? What does that have to do with Jim Crow?

[Warren Dew]

I'm not sure what current law has to do with libertarian philosophy.  Remember that this discussion started out with an inquiry from you regarding libertarian thought:

(01-28-2017, 08:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: 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?

You've got your answer now.  Everyone is okay with some forms of discrimination, even you.  Libertarians just happen to draw the line regarding  what's allowable in a different place than you do.

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 07:24 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 12:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with.  I would recommend Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard which is a very good history of Colonial America through to the early Federal period.  It was actually very well received by historians at the time an well worth your time to read.

I have to differ with you here a bit.  Segregation laws certainly infringed on rights of free association.  Miscegenation laws, which were not limited to the South, were perhaps the most egregious examples, and incidentally show that the government doesn't distinguish between "private" behavior and "public" behavior the way that Bob personally does.

Classical liberalism was indeed the guiding philosophy under which the US was founded; however, it ceased to be the guiding philosophy in the early 20th century with the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments.

Nitpick.  I agree entirely that the 16th, 17th and 18th amendment marked a significant break in guiding philosophy.  However, at the end of Reconstruction, at the beginning of Jim Crow, the US Supreme Court essentially nullified the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments.  I would suggest this should count as another significant break, another change in the guiding philosophy.  I'd also nominate Thurgood Marshall's efforts in the mid 20th Century to restore the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments as another significant break.

On other threads dealing with other issues I have argued that the Supreme Court ought to honor the wording of the text and the intent of the authors rather than legislating from the bench or applying modern political objectives as trumping rule of law.  I might be the only vaguely blue person on the board who sympathized with Scalia.  I developed this attitude when researching the Jim Crow era Supreme Court cases.  A handful of old men turned the law and the country upside down.

Race has played a large role in US legal theory and precedent.  A huge role.  I suspect there is a conspiracy to avoid examination of the Jim Crow court as the period discredits the Supreme Court as an institution.  I feel that way, anyway.  

Anyway, race and tidal changes in Supreme Court precedent and philosophy are a hot button issues for me.

-- wait a sec, isn't one of those the income tax amendment? What does that have to do with Jim Crow?

Yes indeed, Marypoza.  They're the income tax, direct election of senators, and prohibition.  I think Bob has his amendments mixed up.

[Marypoza]

(01-29-2017, 07:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:24 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 12:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with.  I would recommend Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard which is a very good history of Colonial America through to the early Federal period.  It was actually very well received by historians at the time an well worth your time to read.

I have to differ with you here a bit.  Segregation laws certainly infringed on rights of free association.  Miscegenation laws, which were not limited to the South, were perhaps the most egregious examples, and incidentally show that the government doesn't distinguish between "private" behavior and "public" behavior the way that Bob personally does.

Classical liberalism was indeed the guiding philosophy under which the US was founded; however, it ceased to be the guiding philosophy in the early 20th century with the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments.

Nitpick.  I agree entirely that the 16th, 17th and 18th amendment marked a significant break in guiding philosophy.  However, at the end of Reconstruction, at the beginning of Jim Crow, the US Supreme Court essentially nullified the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments.  I would suggest this should count as another significant break, another change in the guiding philosophy.  I'd also nominate Thurgood Marshall's efforts in the mid 20th Century to restore the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments as another significant break.

On other threads dealing with other issues I have argued that the Supreme Court ought to honor the wording of the text and the intent of the authors rather than legislating from the bench or applying modern political objectives as trumping rule of law.  I might be the only vaguely blue person on the board who sympathized with Scalia.  I developed this attitude when researching the Jim Crow era Supreme Court cases.  A handful of old men turned the law and the country upside down.

Race has played a large role in US legal theory and precedent.  A huge role.  I suspect there is a conspiracy to avoid examination of the Jim Crow court as the period discredits the Supreme Court as an institution.  I feel that way, anyway.  

Anyway, race and tidal changes in Supreme Court precedent and philosophy are a hot button issues for me.

-- wait a sec, isn't one of those the income tax amendment? What does that have to do with Jim Crow?

Yes indeed, Marypoza.  They're the income tax, direct election of senators, and prohibition.  I think Bob has his amendments mixed up.

-- omg yes the 18th Amendment was Prohibition, wasn't it? 

Ooops!!

[Eric the Green]

(01-29-2017, 07:46 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:24 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 12:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I have to differ with you here a bit.  Segregation laws certainly infringed on rights of free association.  Miscegenation laws, which were not limited to the South, were perhaps the most egregious examples, and incidentally show that the government doesn't distinguish between "private" behavior and "public" behavior the way that Bob personally does.

Classical liberalism was indeed the guiding philosophy under which the US was founded; however, it ceased to be the guiding philosophy in the early 20th century with the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments.

Nitpick.  I agree entirely that the 16th, 17th and 18th amendment marked a significant break in guiding philosophy.  However, at the end of Reconstruction, at the beginning of Jim Crow, the US Supreme Court essentially nullified the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments.  I would suggest this should count as another significant break, another change in the guiding philosophy.  I'd also nominate Thurgood Marshall's efforts in the mid 20th Century to restore the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments as another significant break.

On other threads dealing with other issues I have argued that the Supreme Court ought to honor the wording of the text and the intent of the authors rather than legislating from the bench or applying modern political objectives as trumping rule of law.  I might be the only vaguely blue person on the board who sympathized with Scalia.  I developed this attitude when researching the Jim Crow era Supreme Court cases.  A handful of old men turned the law and the country upside down.

Race has played a large role in US legal theory and precedent.  A huge role.  I suspect there is a conspiracy to avoid examination of the Jim Crow court as the period discredits the Supreme Court as an institution.  I feel that way, anyway.  

Anyway, race and tidal changes in Supreme Court precedent and philosophy are a hot button issues for me.

-- wait a sec, isn't one of those the income tax amendment? What does that have to do with Jim Crow?

Yes indeed, Marypoza.  They're the income tax, direct election of senators, and prohibition.  I think Bob has his amendments mixed up.

-- omg yes the 18th Amendment was Prohibition, wasn't it? 

Ooops!!

I think he may have meant the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2017, 07:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:24 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 12:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with.  I would recommend Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard which is a very good history of Colonial America through to the early Federal period.  It was actually very well received by historians at the time an well worth your time to read.

I have to differ with you here a bit.  Segregation laws certainly infringed on rights of free association.  Miscegenation laws, which were not limited to the South, were perhaps the most egregious examples, and incidentally show that the government doesn't distinguish between "private" behavior and "public" behavior the way that Bob personally does.

Classical liberalism was indeed the guiding philosophy under which the US was founded; however, it ceased to be the guiding philosophy in the early 20th century with the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments.

Nitpick.  I agree entirely that the 16th, 17th and 18th amendment marked a significant break in guiding philosophy.  However, at the end of Reconstruction, at the beginning of Jim Crow, the US Supreme Court essentially nullified the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments.  I would suggest this should count as another significant break, another change in the guiding philosophy.  I'd also nominate Thurgood Marshall's efforts in the mid 20th Century to restore the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments as another significant break.

On other threads dealing with other issues I have argued that the Supreme Court ought to honor the wording of the text and the intent of the authors rather than legislating from the bench or applying modern political objectives as trumping rule of law.  I might be the only vaguely blue person on the board who sympathized with Scalia.  I developed this attitude when researching the Jim Crow era Supreme Court cases.  A handful of old men turned the law and the country upside down.

Race has played a large role in US legal theory and precedent.  A huge role.  I suspect there is a conspiracy to avoid examination of the Jim Crow court as the period discredits the Supreme Court as an institution.  I feel that way, anyway.  

Anyway, race and tidal changes in Supreme Court precedent and philosophy are a hot button issues for me.

-- wait a sec, isn't one of those the income tax amendment? What does that have to do with Jim Crow?

Yes indeed, Marypoza.  They're the income tax, direct election of senators, and prohibition.  I think Bob has his amendments mixed up.

Whoops.  Yep.  Sorry.  I made the mistake of answering Warren's post above without fact checking it.   I think we both meant 13, 14 and 15.

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 08:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Whoops.  Yep.  Sorry.  I made the mistake of answering Warren's post above without fact checking it.   I think we both meant 13, 14 and 15.

Wrong again.  I meant 16, 17, and 18, exactly as I said.  The "early 20th century" part should have provided a clue; amendments 13, 14, and 15 were passed in the 19th century, not the 20th.

Maybe you could start paying attention to what people actually say, rather than what you incorrectly assume they meant to say?

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 07:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think he may have meant the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

I see Bob is not alone in reading what he expects to read rather than reading what was actually written.

I'd blame it on a leftist tendency incorrectly to assume they already know what everyone thinks, except that Marypoza actually read what I said.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2017, 07:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm not sure what current law has to do with libertarian philosophy.  Remember that this discussion started out with an inquiry from you regarding libertarian thought:

(01-28-2017, 08:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: 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?

Since when do we ever stay on topic?

(01-29-2017, 07:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You've got your answer now.  Everyone is okay with some forms of discrimination, even you. 

Huh?  I must have missed something.  I do have some deep down prejudices which I try hard not to act on.  I'm no saint.  I spent some time trying to come up with some examples of when I did act on them.  If I had come up with something, I would have printed it.  What act of discrimination are you talking about?

(01-29-2017, 07:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Libertarians just happen to draw the line regarding  what's allowable in a different place than you do.

Yep.  However, my opinion and yours matter less than that of the Congress.  I think we have clarified things.  You are fond of the principles and philosophies that were in place at the time of slavery.  While it's wordy and full of lawyer speak, I'm more sympathetic with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  We're in different centuries.

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 08:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You've got your answer now.  Everyone is okay with some forms of discrimination, even you. 

Huh?  I must have missed something.  I do have some deep down prejudices which I try hard not to act on.  I'm no saint.  I spent some time trying to come up with some examples of when I did act on them.  If I had come up with something, I would have printed it.  What act of discrimination are you talking about?

The following strongly implies that you think it's fine to discriminate when choosing one's friends:

(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: ... I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.

I'm pretty sure you didn't come out in favor of prohibiting gays from discriminating against straights when accepting dates, and vice versa, either.

Quote:

(01-29-2017, 07:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Libertarians just happen to draw the line regarding  what's allowable in a different place than you do.

Yep.  However, my opinion and yours matter less than that of the Congress.  I think we have clarified things.  You are fond of the principles and philosophies that were in place at the time of slavery.  While it's wordy and full of lawyer speak, I'm more sympathetic with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  We're in different centuries.

Still getting confused between 19th and 20th century amendments, I see.

[Bob Butler 54]

OK.  From my point of view, I'll still say that start of Reconstruction, Start of Jim Crow, and Thurgood Marshall in the mid 20th are times of significant changes in racial law.  I can acknowledge different people think different things important.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2017, 08:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 08:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You've got your answer now.  Everyone is okay with some forms of discrimination, even you. 

Huh?  I must have missed something.  I do have some deep down prejudices which I try hard not to act on.  I'm no saint.  I spent some time trying to come up with some examples of when I did act on them.  If I had come up with something, I would have printed it.  What act of discrimination are you talking about?

The following strongly implies that you think it's fine to discriminate when choosing one's friends:

(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.

You snipped my post and are taking it quite out of context.

First, I never ever deny goods or services because the purchaser is a minoriy.  That's not because I'm a saint.  I'm retired.  I don't sell goods or services period.  To anybody.  

When I worked, I wrote software for the military industrial complex.  The customer representatives were predominantly white and male, with a scattering of exceptions, but you don't ever show prejudice against representatives of the government overseeing your contract.  Bad idea.  Really bad idea.  Respect the customer.

Take it in context of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It is correct to ban prejudice and discrimination when one in providing certain types of goods and services in a public setting.  On the other hand, I'll endorse entirely the libertarian concept of freedom of association when one is at home, in a private club, or just amongst friends.  It is not the government's place to regulate who one might befriend, who one might date, whom one might marry, etc...  I don't see practicing freedom of association while in private settings as discrimination.  I thought you liked freedom of association.

My primary social activity is playing role playing games at two game stores, and with Jorge's group.  There are a few women, blacks and latinos that play in the same games I play.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  Most of them are fine players who make the game more fun.  Some of the games are closed, invitation only.  Some of them are public.  The store owner wants business and welcomes anyone who walks in off the street wanting to learn a game.  I have no problems with religion, skin color, culture etc...  Thus, while in abstract I don't want the government deciding who one might date, who one might befriend, etc...  I can't think of any examples where I have personally rejected social contact due to race, religion, gender, etc... 

(01-29-2017, 07:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm pretty sure you didn't come out in favor of prohibiting gays from discriminating against straights when accepting dates, and vice versa, either.

Correct.  Freedom of association is a fine principle in a private setting.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does a decent job of drawing the line between public and private settings.

[Eric the Green]

(01-29-2017, 08:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 08:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Whoops.  Yep.  Sorry.  I made the mistake of answering Warren's post above without fact checking it.   I think we both meant 13, 14 and 15.

Wrong again.  I meant 16, 17, and 18, exactly as I said.  The "early 20th century" part should have provided a clue; amendments 13, 14, and 15 were passed in the 19th century, not the 20th.

Maybe you could start paying attention to what people actually say, rather than what you incorrectly assume they meant to say?

I see what you meant. You were talking about classical liberalism (which I identify, on the economics part at least, with neo-liberalism and all those other names it has), which was superceded by "liberalism" of the 20th century kind (watered-down democratic socialism). Actually, the 16th and 17th amendments were capstones of the new "liberal" progressive era, as was the 17th. The progressive movement had already been active in the Democratic and Populist parties since the 1890s at least, and acted upon in the 1900s with many other reforms. The 18th (prohibition against alcohol) is not a part of modern liberalism from that era to today; it had been considered a "reform movement" dating back many decades, especially to the 1840s. Of course women's suffrage also got its big start in 1848. I don't know why you were talking about classical liberalism though. I'll have to check that out

Yes, to some extent in the 20th and 21st century, "property rights" are used as an excuse for discrimination, especially in the arguments against fair housings laws. I remember all the way back to the campaign over Prop.14 in CA, which is a campaign I worked on in youth. "No on 14" is a slogan I remember well.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Propo...ate_(1964)

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2017, 09:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: My primary social activity is playing role playing games at two game stores, and with Jorge's group.  There are a few women, blacks and latinos that play in the same games I play.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  Most of them are fine players who make the game more fun.  Some of the games are closed, invitation only.  Some of them are public.  The store owner wants business and welcomes anyone who walks in off the street wanting to learn a game.  I have no problems with religion, skin color, culture etc...  Thus, while in abstract I don't want the government deciding who one might date, who one might befriend, etc...  I can't think of any examples where I have personally rejected social contact due to race, religion, gender, etc... 

With further thought, OK, I might have some discrimination here.  I play in four game circles.  One is a public Pathfinder Society game where anyone can walk in off the street, plop a few dollars on the counter, and join the game.  Three are closed invitation only games.  If the players think the game would be improved by inviting in new members, they will consult with each other and invite people in.  I suspect the store owner might get in trouble if he posted a 'whites only' sign on his public game.  I don't think there would be trouble if the private groups never issued invitations to minorities.

I hope not.  All three private games I play in are all white, all male.  (This includes Jorge's group of MITSGS veterans.)  My sisters make quilts as a hobby.  Their sewing circles are all female.  Certain hobbies and interests attract different sorts of people.  To some degree prejudice might be involved, but in the case of my private game circles we're just looking for very experienced players (10 years plus in the hobby) who play a certain style of game.  We like people who do more role playing, a little less hack - n - slash combat, and are able to absorb the somewhat complex rules systems without difficulty.

This might illustrate in real life my perspective.  Freedom of association in a private setting, no prejudice in a public setting.  I don't want to see the government knocking on the door of Jorge's apartment demanding that we include minorities in a game group that has been playing together since the late 1970s.  I do seem to play in segregated groups, but if a lady or other sort of minority who plays the right style of game wants to join in, I really wouldn't object.  I have had no trouble working with minorities in the public game.

While Jorge's group is dominated by former MIT students and employees, the other two invitation only groups are dominated by former military types who spent a lot of time when they were younger playing barracks games.  The language can get rather salty.  This might or might not be a factor in bringing in outsiders.

(01-29-2017, 09:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 07:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm pretty sure you didn't come out in favor of prohibiting gays from discriminating against straights when accepting dates, and vice versa, either.

Correct.  Freedom of association is a fine principle in a private setting.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does a decent job of drawing the line between public and private settings.

The above two sentences seem a good brief summary of my position.  I believe most blues would agree with it.  If I understand the libertarian position correctly, they would like to apply freedom of association to both the public and private sector.  In the extreme, this could involve repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all similar legislation.

How many would want to go that far?  If not, how does one go less far?

[Marypoza]

(01-29-2017, 08:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 08:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Whoops.  Yep.  Sorry.  I made the mistake of answering Warren's post above without fact checking it.   I think we both meant 13, 14 and 15.

Wrong again.  I meant 16, 17, and 18, exactly as I said.  The "early 20th century" part should have provided a clue; amendments 13, 14, and 15 were passed in the 19th century, not the 20th.

Maybe you could start paying attention to what people actually say, rather than what you incorrectly assume they meant to say?

-- ok Prohibition is dead. The 17th & 19th Amendments have to do with voting rights so l can see their connection to Jim Crow. So l repeat- what does income tax have to do with Jim Crow?

[Eric the Green]

(01-30-2017, 02:46 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 08:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 08:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Whoops.  Yep.  Sorry.  I made the mistake of answering Warren's post above without fact checking it.   I think we both meant 13, 14 and 15.

Wrong again.  I meant 16, 17, and 18, exactly as I said.  The "early 20th century" part should have provided a clue; amendments 13, 14, and 15 were passed in the 19th century, not the 20th.

Maybe you could start paying attention to what people actually say, rather than what you incorrectly assume they meant to say?

-- ok Prohibition is dead. The 17th & 19th Amendments have to do with voting rights so l can see their connection to Jim Crow. So l repeat- what does income tax have to do with Jim Crow?

Unless I am mistaken, Warren responded to a post by Galen talking about property rights. Warren said these have declined since the 16th amendment. I'm not sure what the connection is to Jim Crow in their minds.

[Marypoza]

(01-30-2017, 02:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 02:46 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 08:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 08:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Whoops.  Yep.  Sorry.  I made the mistake of answering Warren's post above without fact checking it.   I think we both meant 13, 14 and 15.

Wrong again.  I meant 16, 17, and 18, exactly as I said.  The "early 20th century" part should have provided a clue; amendments 13, 14, and 15 were passed in the 19th century, not the 20th.

Maybe you could start paying attention to what people actually say, rather than what you incorrectly assume they meant to say?

-- ok Prohibition is dead. The 17th & 19th Amendments have to do with voting rights so l can see their connection to Jim Crow. So l repeat- what does income tax have to do with Jim Crow?

Unless I am mistaken, Warren responded to a post by Galen talking about property rights. Warren said these have declined since the 16th amendment. I'm not sure what the connection is to Jim Crow in their minds.

-- well, there was redlining in the 20th century. Still don't see what that had to do with income tax. You can deduct a mortgage, but that applies to everybody, doesn't it?

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-30-2017, 02:46 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 08:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 08:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Whoops.  Yep.  Sorry.  I made the mistake of answering Warren's post above without fact checking it.   I think we both meant 13, 14 and 15.

Wrong again.  I meant 16, 17, and 18, exactly as I said.  The "early 20th century" part should have provided a clue; amendments 13, 14, and 15 were passed in the 19th century, not the 20th.

Maybe you could start paying attention to what people actually say, rather than what you incorrectly assume they meant to say?

-- ok Prohibition is dead. The 17th & 19th Amendments have to do with voting rights so l can see their connection to Jim Crow. So l repeat- what does income tax have to do with Jim Crow?

Nothing.  I did not read Warren carefully enough.  As a result I was talking around him, aiming for the wrong target.  I am very concerned with race relations and the law.  I focus on how race policy effects legal theory and precedent.  Thus, I am concerned highly with how race policy and legal theories shifted at the beginning of Reconstruction, the start of Jim Crow and with Thurgood Marshall's efforts to repeal Jim Crow.  Warren thinks other things important.  This shouldn't be considered unusual.  People with different values and world views will take different lessons learned from different aspects of history.  I'll leave it to him to say what and why his concerns might be.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-30-2017, 06:32 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Continuing the mea culpa. I ran into the following interview with Charlie Sykes. I can totally relate to his PoV:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-po...story.html

It's too late, but the things he did that he wished he didn't are worthy of mention and note.  I'd add it isn't just red talk radio that spins deplorably.  Trump isn't totally wrong when he says the media is hostile, notably the coastal blue media.

[Mikebert]

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

These rights are limited and always have been. For example the police can enter your home with a warrant. It is a crime to conducting business with certain people, e.g. selling liquor to a minor or knowingly sell weapons to terrorists.