THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[Banned]

"Lobbyists get paid more than Congressmen because they write more laws than we do." - Ron Paul

[bassist_25]

I'm in agreement with a lot of what you're saying, Jason, but I totally disagree with this:

Myself, and lots of libertarians are NOT alright with discrimination, but I'm not going to infringe on your private property freedoms because of that. I'm not going to support your discriminatory business if you open one, either. I'm DEFINITELY not alright with the government discriminating against private property owners. What makes them any better?

You ultimately have a conundrum if you want a market economy as a commodity delivery system while concurrently giving private business owners the ability to discriminate based on race, disability, etc. In that regard, if hegemony is a strong enough factor residing within the business class - that is, they are all able to put a sizable amount of discriminatory pressure upon the minority - then a market failure is going to occur regarding the minority, who cannot purchase goods and services due to being barred from such establishments. In other words, they will become marginalized. So while more agency is bestowed upon those who own private businesses by rescinding civil rights legislation, the propensity for hegemonic pressure against minority groups is greatly increased.

Whether or not the government serves as a suitable arbiter to balance these interests is ultimately a value call. However, I'm skeptical of discriminatory practices being curtailed by something such as a boycott if the rest of the community members legitimize the discriminatory practices.

[lonewolf]

Paul, you forgot about the possibility of the discriminated classes forming their own businesses and providing products & services. In that way it would actually have a positive effect. In a free market economy, demand WILL be met one way or another.

In just about any way imaginable, the government nanny has extinguished a lot a fires from under a lot of asses, especially the poor.

[Gallowglass]

I'm in agreement with a lot of what you're saying, Jason, but I totally disagree with this:

Myself, and lots of libertarians are NOT alright with discrimination, but I'm not going to infringe on your private property freedoms because of that. I'm not going to support your discriminatory business if you open one, either. I'm DEFINITELY not alright with the government discriminating against private property owners. What makes them any better?

You ultimately have a conundrum if you want a market economy as a commodity delivery system while concurrently giving private business owners the ability to discriminate based on race, disability, etc. In that regard, if hegemony is a strong enough factor residing within the business class - that is, they are all able to put a sizable amount of discriminatory pressure upon the minority - then a market failure is going to occur regarding the minority, who cannot purchase goods and services due to being barred from such establishments. In other words, they will become marginalized. So while more agency is bestowed upon those who own private businesses by rescinding civil rights legislation, the propensity for hegemonic pressure against minority groups is greatly increased.

Whether or not the government serves as a suitable arbiter to balance these interests is ultimately a value call. However, I'm skeptical of discriminatory practices being curtailed by something such as a boycott if the rest of the community members legitimize the discriminatory practices.

Paul,
I agree with almost all of what you're saying too. I also admit it's a conundrum. Minorities will certainly be marginalized. I just feel that it's more fair and does the society more ultimate good to let the agency rest with the private business. I don't like the government as arbiter of interest. I think the solution needs to be a societal one, not a political one. In a truly free market, goods and services will find a way to those who truly want them. I admit that there is the opportunity for great exploitation, but don't you think greed would work in the minority's favor? Surely some enterprising souls would be willing to undercut other suppliers who might be charging exorbitant fees due to discriminatory bias. Also, what prohibits the minority from servicing themselves?

In a free market system, I don't care as much about boycotts being effective. In a free society, we have to choose what is right for ourselves. I am willing to let others be relatively free to do what they want, even if I don't agree with it, so long as I am free to make my own choices. Let others live with their choices. If you don't like someone else's business practices, don't patronize them. If you're REALLY upset, start your own business and compete with them. I know that's not a popular view, but I also think it's the fairest way.

We need enough freedom in order to learn. I'm certain toes would get stubbed and terrible things would occur. Terrible things happen already. I don't think enforcement policies create as much incentive to reexamine our views as liberty minded ones do. Learning to comply is one thing, learning to accept is another.

[Banned]

Bill and Paul have posted thing about freedom and libertarianism that have something in common. They see such a dark nature as people respond to freedom. If libertarianism was the law of the land, Bill sees a world of children being poisoned, drug addicts lining the gutters and race discrimination in most businesses. Paul sees businesses showing racism against minorities.

Why? Where does this dark view come from? Do you think we are all evil minded people, just waiting for the laws to be changed so we can do hard drugs, hurt and poison children and discriminate against a race other than our own?

Most people I know see freedom and liberty as a positive.

I guess they see authoritarian government as a positive. Why? A fascist nature?

[Hawk]

Gallowglass:

"...and one could say it's reality that you support infanticide if you support paying your taxes. Look man, everyone does NOT want to live in your little world, even if you think it would be utopian. I for one would probably violently rebel if you and your ilk were given free reign. The libertarian view is that one cannot support everything that one does with their freedom, but we're going to give everyone as much freedom as possible without actually physically harming people (unless it's voluntary). That way, we can have as much of our own little worlds as possible. Support what you WANT to support. Myself, and lots of libertarians are NOT alright with discrimination, but I'm not going to infringe on your private property freedoms because of that. I'm not going to support your discriminatory business if you open one, either. I'm DEFINITELY not alright with the government discriminating against private property owners. What makes them any better?[/quote] "

I don't mean to piss you off but I won't back down either. Why can't you simply say that yes, you would support the right for anyone in the private sector who owns an establishment open to the public his right to discriminate based on race. Even if YOU personally would NOT use said establishment. All because of your principal. I would hope that I would give up my life to allow equal access to all races to all places open to the public.

You failed to follow through, am I wrong, or wouldn't Libertarians like everyting to be in the private sector, schools, public transportation etc. ?

[bassist_25]

Paul, you forgot about the possibility of the discriminated classes forming their own businesses and providing products & services. In that way it would actually have a positive effect. In a free market economy, demand WILL be met one way or another.

I had a feeling that argument would be posited. I was going to address it in my original post, but decided to move on. In some instances, that has taken place, most notably with the Jewish being marginalized in earlier history and then crafting their own economic base through banking. However, for the most part, marginalized groups are also cut off from avenues of upward mobility, again, due to hegemonic influence from the power-holders. Didn't A.G. Gaston say something along the lines of if you want to empower a people you have to give them economic opportunity? It's a simplified way of looking at things, but their is some validity to what he said.

Paul,
I agree with almost all of what you're saying too. I also admit it's a conundrum. Minorities will certainly be marginalized. I just feel that it's more fair and does the society more ultimate good to let the agency rest with the private business. I don't like the government as arbiter of interest. I think the solution needs to be a societal one, not a political one. In a truly free market, goods and services will find a way to those who truly want them. I admit that there is the opportunity for great exploitation, but don't you think greed would work in the minority's favor? Surely some enterprising souls would be willing to undercut other suppliers who might be charging exorbitant fees due to discriminatory bias. Also, what prohibits the minority from servicing themselves?

In a free market system, I don't care as much about boycotts being effective. In a free society, we have to choose what is right for ourselves. I am willing to let others be relatively free to do what they want, even if I don't agree with it, so long as I am free to make my own choices. Let others live with their choices. If you don't like someone else's business practices, don't patronize them. If you're REALLY upset, start your own business and compete with them. I know that's not a popular view, but I also think it's the fairest way.

We need enough freedom in order to learn. I'm certain toes would get stubbed and terrible things would occur. Terrible things happen already. I don't think enforcement policies create as much incentive to reexamine our views as liberty minded ones do. Learning to comply is one thing, learning to accept is another.

I dig what you're saying. I guess you're just taking things from a more philosophical viewpoint and I'm taking things from a more empirical standpoint. Joey thinks it's crazy that I think businesses will discriminate based upon race. You know why? Because businesses have discriminated based upon race in the past.

Bill and Paul have posted thing about freedom and libertarianism that have something in common. They see such a dark nature as people respond to freedom. If libertarianism was the law of the land, Bill sees a world of children being poisoned, drug addicts lining the gutters and race discrimination in most businesses. Paul sees businesses showing racism against minorities.

Why? Where does this dark view come from? Do you think we are all evil minded people, just waiting for the laws to be changed so we can do hard drugs, hurt and poison children and discriminate against a race other than our own?

Most people I know see freedom and liberty as a positive.

I guess they see authoritarian government as a positive. Why? A fascist nature?

I hang my head in shame.

[Hawk]

Bill and Paul have posted thing about freedom and libertarianism that have something in common. They see such a dark nature as people respond to freedom. If libertarianism was the law of the land, Bill sees a world of children being poisoned, drug addicts lining the gutters and race discrimination in most businesses. Paul sees businesses showing racism against minorities.

Why? Where does this dark view come from? Do you think we are all evil minded people, just waiting for the laws to be changed so we can do hard drugs, hurt and poison children and discriminate against a race other than our own?

Most people I know see freedom and liberty as a positive.

I guess they see authoritarian government as a positive. Why? A fascist nature?

Really Joe? You don't remember the race riots from the 60s ? You don't remember the showdown with George Wallace ?
There are good people and there are bad people, I don't want to give the bad people back their ability to act on their racist beliefs with the legal backing of a Libertarian principal.

[Hawk]

Hawk wrote:
Making all hard drugs legal IMHO is not a good thing.

Jason wrote:
Why, because the War on Drugs has been such a resounding success? Wake up man, it's a sham. It's a huge expenditure, it's been completely ineffectual, it has made billionaires out of criminal enterprises, and it has resulted in the complete militarization of our police forces. Awesome, let's cling to that...maybe we need to try something different.

Hawk wrote:
Removing all military from all countries around the world IMO would leave us in a precarious position.

Jason Wrote:
And what gives us the right to occupy these countries like we do? What about their sovereignty? How would YOU feel if there were foreign troops on our soil? Ever hear of blowback? It isn't cost effective in the long run either. Maybe we just can't afford to be the world police anymore. Maybe we shouldn't have thought we were in the first place.

Hawk wrote:
Are these Libertarian principals ?
If I'm misunderstand something please enlighten me, as I don't want to be wrong about my understanding of such important matters. These principals scare me so unless they are NOT Libertarian principals I will likely bring them up again. If I misunderstand I will accept your vision because you are perhaps the best interpreter for Libertarianism I know.

Thanks

Bill

Jason wrote:

For the most part, you have cited what most folks would agree are general libertarian principles (although generalizing about libertarians is as dangerous as it generalizing about any group of people). You understand what the principles are, but I don't think you understand the spirit. I agree that some of the ideas are scary, but they are a lot less scary to me than where we find ourselves right now. Thanks, J.J.F.
_________________

There are countries who appreciate our military presence.

I do believe hard drugs would be more rampant if they were legal and more addicts would only add more societal problems. I have no way to prove this just as you have no way to prove otherwise.

Military presence in other countries around the world helps protect the US as much as it does other countries. And if we assist in protecting other countries we again are protecting the US.

[Hawk]

"Lobbyists get paid more than Congressmen because they write more laws than we do." - Ron Paul

There in lies the biggest problem we have today.

Where we are economically today is exactly where some who have the money to pay the lobbyists who buy congress, want us to be. Greater Record profits and lower wages. Keep unemployment high enough and keep people scared and they can and will continue on that same path !

Increase profits, lower wages. It's easy with unemployment high and people afraid. Look how well it works for them. The reality of it there in your face.

[Hawk]

Given that we live in a representative democracy, and if we lived under Libertarian rule, would we be allowed to vote for congressmen / presidents who would deny the right of privately owned businesses to discriminate based on race ?

Or is Libertarian rule authoritarian ?

If the majority of people didn't want to legalize hard drugs, is there a way for them to stop it from being legal if we lived under Libertarian rule ?

Or would Libertarian rule be authoritarian ?

Really, I don't know and would like to be enlightened. How would things work if we lived by Libertarian rules and laws ? Would we be able to change the laws / rules ?

[Hawk]

C'mon Bill, haven't you figured it out yet? The only difference between the 2 parties is that the democrans come right out and tell you that they want to spend more, whereas the republicrats say they want smaller government, but end up spending as much. It doesn't matter who wins in 2012, either party will bankrupt us just as soon as interest rates go up.

The only way to prevent a debt brick wall is to cut $1 trillion from the budget over a 1 year period and maintain that level of spending.

They can't even manage to cut $1 trillion over a 10 year period.

After seeing the infamous pepper spray incident, i have added "gasmasks" to my "to do list."

The difference between the two parties is that the Republicans want to keep the rich rich. No actually the Republicans want to make the rich richer, lower wages, keep unemployment high and keep people scared. The Democrats don't want what the Republicans want.

Why do the republicans want that - POWER.

[Gallowglass]

...I don't mean to piss you off but I won't back down either. Why can't you simply say that yes, you would support the right for anyone in the private sector who owns an establishment open to the public his right to discriminate based on race. Even if YOU personally would NOT use said establishment. All because of your principal. I would hope that I would give up my life to allow equal access to all races to all places open to the public.

Uh, I thought I pretty much said that. I wouldn't support it, I just wouldn't use the weight of government to stop it.

You failed to follow through, am I wrong, or wouldn't Libertarians like everyting to be in the private sector, schools, public transportation etc. ?

Depends on the libertarian. I would personally like to see as much privatized as possible, with the possible exception of the penal system.

[lonewolf]

Military presence in other countries around the world helps protect the US as much as it does other countries. And if we assist in protecting other countries we again are protecting the US.

We haven't brought the troops home from WWII and Korea yet. Granted, the Korean presence is probably deterring invasion from the north, but exactly what is it that we are defending in Germany?

This whole 20th century cold war mentality no longer applies to 95% of the world. Except for Korea, Japan and the current mideast theatre (which I hope comes to a quick finish), I can't think of any US military bases on foreign soil that do any good except pump up the local economies.

The US Navy can be and is deployed to provide a quick response capability anywhere in the world. We also have sufficient forward bases on US/UK territorial islands to maintain a deterrent.

Not only is the cold war mentality archaic, but clinging to it weakens our defenses by drawing our resources away from our real enemy, the faceless, unknown 21st century terrorist.

And, don't forget about America's #1 economic enemy: Congress

[Hawk]

...I don't mean to piss you off but I won't back down either. Why can't you simply say that yes, you would support the right for anyone in the private sector who owns an establishment open to the public his right to discriminate based on race. Even if YOU personally would NOT use said establishment. All because of your principal. I would hope that I would give up my life to allow equal access to all races to all places open to the public.

Uh, I thought I pretty much said that. I wouldn't support it, I just wouldn't use the weight of government to stop it.

You failed to follow through, am I wrong, or wouldn't Libertarians like everyting to be in the private sector, schools, public transportation etc. ?

Depends on the libertarian. I would personally like to see as much privatized as possible, with the possible exception of the penal system.

So we go back to the black lady who has to sit in the back of the bus, or is not allowed on the bus at all ? I would fight to the death to prevent that. And blacks who won't be allowed in all white schools ? That's disgusting...

[songsmith]

Does anyone know what percentage of unemployed lost their jobs from Federal, State, County, Local government down sizing ?

Does it matter? Whether employed or not, they still receive our tax dollars.

Theoretically then, so do you.

[Hawk]

And, don't forget about America's #1 economic enemy: Congress

Indeed ! Bought and paid for by the people who can afford to own them! We get what they paid for, the shaft...

[songsmith]

Bill and Paul have posted thing about freedom and libertarianism that have something in common. They see such a dark nature as people respond to freedom. If libertarianism was the law of the land, Bill sees a world of children being poisoned, drug addicts lining the gutters and race discrimination in most businesses. Paul sees businesses showing racism against minorities.

Why? Where does this dark view come from? Do you think we are all evil minded people, just waiting for the laws to be changed so we can do hard drugs, hurt and poison children and discriminate against a race other than our own?

Most people I know see freedom and liberty as a positive.

I guess they see authoritarian government as a positive. Why? A fascist nature?

Joe, I've REALLY been trying to treat you respectfully, but that post could be the stupidest thing ever. First you paint an extreme version of what Bill was saying, then tie it to YOUR definition of what motivated him to make the argument. Neither is necessarily true, or germaine to the argument at hand.
Here's the part that screwed you: the word, and concept, "liberty." You need the respondent to accept that you define liberty, and in your case, control it. I don't accept it, and you don't control it, anymore than you accept my definitions of reality.
THIS is the main flaw in libertarianism. There is no such thing as "everybody does their own thing as long as it doesn't affect someone else." Joe is living, breathing proof of this. You, and hardline conservatism itself, says "freedom," but it also NEEDS the rest of us to do exactly as we're told, always. Conservatism needs me to obey everyone it tells me to, from God, to my boss, to each and every conservative opinion. If libertarianism is inherently conservative, it is self-contradicting.
For you to assume the moral high-ground in allowing institutional racism? Well, that's the part that that leaves me agape.
Now, I know you'll respond with EVEN MORE pronouncements of statism, fascism, and the most ironic assessment you've ever made, authoritarianism (that one always makes me giggle, the most authoritarian person I've ever known calling the kettle black). That's okay, it's what we've come to expect from you.
Just don't expect people to give up their "freedom" to point to the giant holes in your position, and the "liberty" to point at you with a smile.

[lonewolf]

...I don't mean to piss you off but I won't back down either. Why can't you simply say that yes, you would support the right for anyone in the private sector who owns an establishment open to the public his right to discriminate based on race. Even if YOU personally would NOT use said establishment. All because of your principal. I would hope that I would give up my life to allow equal access to all races to all places open to the public.

Uh, I thought I pretty much said that. I wouldn't support it, I just wouldn't use the weight of government to stop it.

You failed to follow through, am I wrong, or wouldn't Libertarians like everyting to be in the private sector, schools, public transportation etc. ?

Depends on the libertarian. I would personally like to see as much privatized as possible, with the possible exception of the penal system.

So we go back to the black lady who has to sit in the back of the bus, or is not allowed on the bus at all ? I would fight to the death to prevent that. And blacks who won't be allowed in all white schools ? That's disgusting...

If you are talking about government subsidized buses and schools, most libertarians don't have a problem with government telling itself what to do and wouldn't have any problem with civil "rights" laws for government entities.

[lonewolf]

THIS is the main flaw in libertarianism. There is no such thing as "everybody does their own thing as long as it doesn't affect someone else."

Incorrect assumption. Here is the theoretical corrected version:

Everybody is free to do their own thing as long as they don't infringe on another's natural rights.

There is a huge difference there. Of course everybody's actions can affect others in both good and bad ways, but that is inconsequential if those others' rights are not infringed. They need to adjust accordingly.

"Civil rights" are not natural rights at all. They are a construct of social justice.

[lonewolf]

C'mon Bill, haven't you figured it out yet? The only difference between the 2 parties is that the democrans come right out and tell you that they want to spend more, whereas the republicrats say they want smaller government, but end up spending as much. It doesn't matter who wins in 2012, either party will bankrupt us just as soon as interest rates go up.

The only way to prevent a debt brick wall is to cut $1 trillion from the budget over a 1 year period and maintain that level of spending.

They can't even manage to cut $1 trillion over a 10 year period.

After seeing the infamous pepper spray incident, i have added "gasmasks" to my "to do list."

The difference between the two parties is that the Republicans want to keep the rich rich. No actually the Republicans want to make the rich richer, lower wages, keep unemployment high and keep people scared. The Democrats don't want what the Republicans want.

Why do the republicans want that - POWER.

THEN PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY A DEMOCRAT SUPERMAJORITY IN CONGRESS PASSED THE OBAMA TAX CUT EXTENSIONS FOR THE RICH?

That's where you are dead wrong Bill. The democrats, thru "Great Society" programs, have put almost half the population into the yoke of government. Both parties are guilty of powermongering.

One party creates the sheep and the other corrals them.

What I can't figure out is why both parties want to bankrupt the government and create a deep, long depression...unless...

it truly is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.

[songsmith]

THIS is the main flaw in libertarianism. There is no such thing as "everybody does their own thing as long as it doesn't affect someone else."

Incorrect assumption. Here is the theoretical corrected version:

Everybody is free to do their own thing as long as they don't infringe on another's natural rights.

There is a huge difference there. Of course everybody's actions can affect others in both good and bad ways, but that is inconsequential if those others' rights are not infringed. They need to adjust accordingly.

"Civil rights" are not natural rights at all. They are a construct of social justice.

I see. A black man's right to be treated fairly is secondary to another's right to discriminate. "Inconsequential," was the word. Inconsequential to whom, the black man, the discriminator, you the observer, or to society at large? I would think there'd be important consequences for everybody in the equation, with the possible exception of the observer. I think this underscores libertarianism's self-contradicting nature. It all rides on the libertarian's ability to remove himself from the consequences, an entitlement to authority. Society owes the libertarian for all his hard work and aptitude, and the libertarian owes society... nothing. He sits in a higher station in life, so he makes all the rules, and all we have to do is abide by them.
Tell me, when a libertarian is wronged by someone, how much effort is given to considering the other guy's rights? Have you ever said to yourself, "That other guy doesn't seem to like what I do. He has every right to feel that way. Like it or not, I just have to accept it, and abide by it." No libertarian I have ever met has ever given me any indication for anything other than I'm supposed to find a place somewhere behind them in line, no matter what the situation. My response to that has always been the same: No.

[RobTheDrummer]

I think the word "discrimination" has been hijacked by political correctness.

[Hawk]

What gets to me is, Libertarians (including Rand Paul) say that while Libertarianism would allow privately owned businesses open to the public to discriminate based on race, they would not go to those businesses.

Doesn't that suggest you (Libertarians) find race discrimination to be morally wrong ?

Then the difference between us is I choose morality over Libertarian principal and you choose Libertarian principal over morality.

I don't understand why ?

[lonewolf]

What gets to me is, Libertarians (including Rand Paul) say that while Libertarianism would allow privately owned businesses open to the public to discriminate based on race, they would not go to those businesses.

Doesn't that suggest you (Libertarians) find race discrimination to be morally wrong ?

Then the difference between us is I choose morality over Libertarian principal and you choose Libertarian principal over morality.

I don't understand why ?

Have you ever said the old cliche: "I don't agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend your right to say it."

What if its racist speech? Are you going to suppress free speech because it happens to be racist?

If so, then I can't help you.

If not, then the short answer is: The same principle applies to property rights as it does to speech rights.

What you call "civil rights" are not natural rights at all. They are constructs of social justice. As I explained to you before, the government has not created and granted a new set of "civil rights", they simply used the interstate commerce clause to squash property rights in favor of social justice laws.