Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   The question libertarians just can't answer   (salon.com) divider line 611
    More: Obvious, members of the United Nations, industrial society, advanced countries, political philosophy, infant mortality, open borders, Fraser Institute, economic freedom  
•       •       •

9969 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jun 2013 at 4:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



611 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-04 05:13:47 PM  

Rwa2play: tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.

Yeah, nice way to start wars that end of your floating islands reduced to rubble.


Their "libertarianism" will last until the first pirate shows up.
 
2013-06-04 05:13:48 PM  

skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.


I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.
 
2013-06-04 05:13:58 PM  

schrodinger: skullkrusher: right libertarianism is opposed to fractional reserve banking. It is also opposed to the Fed's existence but specifically, in this context, the Fed's impact on interest rates. No FRB, no artificially depressed interest rates, no housing bubble.

So how do they explain the bubble in gold, or the bubble in bitcoins?


inefficient markets and irrational exuberance. Of course, the market in commodities and "artificial" currencies lends itself to quick runs and volatility.
 
2013-06-04 05:14:21 PM  
The reason you can't have a libertarian country is the same reason you can't have a purely communist country. You can't have people be aligned to that kind of ideology where there's no real compromise. Communists just eliminate all detractors and libertarians wouldn't ever stop someone from forming another type of government that would be more beneficial for them.

Libertarianism is nice but it relies too heavily on people being responsible for their own actions... and we can't have that!
 
2013-06-04 05:14:40 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.


I wonder if there will be any regulations for the building of their country-rafts?
 
2013-06-04 05:14:43 PM  

rustypouch: Rev.K: bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.

That's one thing that bothers me about libertarianism, is the lack of consumer protection.

I like knowing that my food and the products I buy are almost entirely safe, and won't poison me. What's to stop a company in Libertopia from cutting corners and putting sawdust in bread, for example, or something worse?


Well, if they kill off all of their customers, there will be no one left to buy from them, will there? The lack of a system works.
 
2013-06-04 05:15:19 PM  

schrodinger: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.


Have you tried going back to high school and paying attention?
 
2013-06-04 05:15:41 PM  

Rwa2play: Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.

Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form. And a Libertarian voter and a volunteer firefighter,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.

And yet you still wonder why FDR was elected over Hoover...


He had a more libertarian message?
 
2013-06-04 05:16:18 PM  

vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?


No, he's right in that many states did ban integrated facilities.

This overlooks the problem that, before the feds got involved, even without state enforcement of such laws (and some states did not have such laws), an integrated lunch counter would be burned to the ground immediately and the local sheriff (who coincidentally smelled of kerosene) would be sadly unable to find the perpetrators.  This is in fact what  did happen throughout the South.
 
2013-06-04 05:16:43 PM  
I take them as embarrassed republicans that just want to be left alone, except for when they want stuff. Then they better get it or tyranny and tree of liberty, etc.
 
2013-06-04 05:16:57 PM  

tfresh: Libertarianism is nice but it relies too heavily on people being responsible for their own actions


corporations are people, my friend....dumping toxic waste in your yard, then rebranding after they get caught.
 
2013-06-04 05:18:03 PM  

qorkfiend: Rwa2play: tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.

Yeah, nice way to start wars that end of your floating islands reduced to rubble.

Their "libertarianism" will last until the first pirate shows up.


Yeah, right?  It's nice to extoll the virtues of libertarianism until that nice little monkey-wrench comes along and "POOF" your Libertarian utopia goes up in smoke.
 
2013-06-04 05:19:22 PM  
the assumption of rational actors is where i jump off the bus.

yah, *if* you had economic or cultural rational actors, a whole lot of isms start making sense. it's just that the 'if' is so huge and predicated on a fairy tale that makes it impossible to take seriously.
 
2013-06-04 05:19:32 PM  

schrodinger: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.


LMGTFY:

Georgia - All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license.
 
2013-06-04 05:20:11 PM  

rustypouch: Rev.K: bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.

That's one thing that bothers me about libertarianism, is the lack of consumer protection.

I like knowing that my food and the products I buy are almost entirely safe, and won't poison me. What's to stop a company in Libertopia from cutting corners and putting sawdust in bread, for example, or something worse?


Over time, the consumers would realize that the company makes shiatty sawdust bread and stop purchasing it forcing the company to make better bread or go out of business.

Sux2bu if you died from the sawdust bread before the company improved though.
 
2013-06-04 05:20:13 PM  

skullkrusher: schrodinger: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.

Have you tried going back to high school and paying attention?


Have you tried actually providing citation?

High school generally covers the state discriminating at the state level (i.e., public schools, voting, etc), and private businesses discriminating at the business level (i.e., restaurants, hotels, etc.).

You're making the argument that restaurants wanted to desegregate but were forced to segregate against their will.  I don't remember this covered anywhere in black history month, but if it actually was covered, I'm sure that you can provide a citation.
 
2013-06-04 05:21:17 PM  

Rwa2play: and "POOF" your Libertarian utopia goes up in smoke.


not all of it, people who prepaid the fire department won't.
 
2013-06-04 05:21:36 PM  

Lawnchair: Georgia - All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license.


Thank you!
 
2013-06-04 05:21:53 PM  
That's the best the left can come up with? Okay, therefore, we must immediately ABANDON current forms of liberal democracy because, back in 1600, one could validly ask the question "Why are there no liberal democracies"? The liberal democracy did not exist until the 18th century. Likewise, one could, also in 1600, ask the question "Why are there no non-oligarchic republics"? Again, an 18th-century invention.

Hell's bells, liberals! How about asking in 1800 "Why hasn't slavery been abolished?"

Liberalism is a mental disorder.
 
2013-06-04 05:22:25 PM  

skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.


I think you're jumping the shark on this one, friend.
 
2013-06-04 05:22:34 PM  

schrodinger: skullkrusher: schrodinger: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.

Have you tried going back to high school and paying attention?

Have you tried actually providing citation?

High school generally covers the state discriminating at the state level (i.e., public schools, voting, etc), and private businesses discriminating at the business level (i.e., restaurants, hotels, etc.).

You're making the argument that restaurants wanted to desegregate but were forced to segregate against their will.  I don't remember this covered anywhere in black history month, but if it actually was covered, I'm sure that you can provide a citation.


aww, now where was I doing that?
I can't speak for each (or any) business owner in each state where these laws forced them to segregate regardless of their wishes.

http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

enjoy
 
2013-06-04 05:23:13 PM  

gimmegimme: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I think you're jumping the shark on this one, friend.


look who's wrong again...
 
2013-06-04 05:23:19 PM  

Lawnchair: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

No, he's right in that many states did ban integrated facilities.

This overlooks the problem that, before the feds got involved, even without state enforcement of such laws (and some states did not have such laws), an integrated lunch counter would be burned to the ground immediately and the local sheriff (who coincidentally smelled of kerosene) would be sadly unable to find the perpetrators.  This is in fact what  did happen throughout the South.


It puts the cart before the horse. Rand Paul argued against the feds lifting the Jim Crow laws. You can't argue the feds are wrong to regulate and then claim that the problem was state laws.
 
2013-06-04 05:24:12 PM  
THEN WHO WAS PHONE???

Go on libertarians. Answer it. Just try.
 
2013-06-04 05:24:15 PM  

skullkrusher: Have you tried going back to high school and paying attention?


the difference is (I think) when you say states supported & even forced segregation, I think of the voters that put the officials in office to vote a particular socially acceptable way.

the State is simply a reflection of its inhabitants.

do you have a citation for the States forcibly enforcing segregation?
 
2013-06-04 05:24:41 PM  
I use Somalia as an endpoint in an anti-Libertarian slippery slope argument.

1: Weak policing leads to provision of security by strong men
2: Strong men become local potentates
3: Strong men become kings
4: Feudalism.

It's a stretch, but it's how Europe went from the Roman empire to Feudal europe after the empire fell apart.

Would it happen that way here? Maybe. I'd bet on corporate overlords instead of feudal lords. Corporations with armies and nuclear weapons.

/Proctor & Gamble presents The Tide wars.
 
2013-06-04 05:24:43 PM  

bulldg4life: rustypouch: Rev.K: bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.

That's one thing that bothers me about libertarianism, is the lack of consumer protection.

I like knowing that my food and the products I buy are almost entirely safe, and won't poison me. What's to stop a company in Libertopia from cutting corners and putting sawdust in bread, for example, or something worse?

Over time, the consumers would realize that the company makes shiatty sawdust bread and stop purchasing it forcing the company to make better bread or go out of business. rebrand as "NoDust!" a theoretically sawdust free alternative bread and start all over again

Sux2bu if you died from the sawdust bread before the company improved though.


FTF laissez faire economy.
 
2013-06-04 05:24:51 PM  

bulldg4life: rustypouch: Rev.K: bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.

That's one thing that bothers me about libertarianism, is the lack of consumer protection.

I like knowing that my food and the products I buy are almost entirely safe, and won't poison me. What's to stop a company in Libertopia from cutting corners and putting sawdust in bread, for example, or something worse?

Over time, the consumers would realize that the company makes shiatty sawdust bread and stop purchasing it forcing the company to make better bread or go out of business.

Sux2bu if you died from the sawdust bread before the company improved though.


That's about where my thought process goes. But I don't want *anyone* to die before it's found out that a company is adulterating their product.
 
2013-06-04 05:25:38 PM  

Rev.K: There is a sh*t-ton of unnecessary noise happening in this video.

The custom of case law as opposed to legislated regulation? I don't see that as relevant.


Sorry to put it this way, but since this is Fark, I kind of have to be a dick: your ignorance of how the law works is showing.

The differences between common law and legislation are EXTREMELY relevant to our discussion here as it is precisely the former that libertarians pay deference to (obviously, progressives pay deference to the latter), and it is the former that is SUPPOSED to inform the latter (although, in this day and age, it doesn't). Obviously, our system of law didn't just fall out of the sky, so it's important to understand and draw distinctions between law that has emerged over time vs. rules that have been legislated by rulers (including elected ones). Libertarians are fine with regulations and general rules that can reasonably be known and understood by everyone - it's the masses of legislated regulations made in the backrooms of Congress that they have most of their problems with. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any one person to know and understand with full comprehension the entire and ever-changing Code of Federal Regulations as well as all of the administrative rules handed down by every single agency of the government (FDA, SEC, IRS, etc.).


A government regulation enforcing the use of recycled paper for government use. He identifies that such a regulation would be detrimental to Maine, a top producer of paper. However, what he doesn't do at all, is attempt to understand the benefit of enacting such a regulation.

- are there cost savings to using recycled paper?
- are there environmental gains to using recycled paper?
- would the use of recycled paper advance other goals of the federal government?

Nope. None of that. A regulation would be bad for business and is therefore bad.


You completely missed his point. It was a point about public choice and protectionist policies designed to keep concentrated benefits (with dispersed costs) in place for political reasons. The senator (a Democrat) used his influence to kill an executive order made by the president at the time (a Democrat) to keep the contemporary legislation forcing the feds to use the products made in his state in effect. It would have cost that senator politically to allow such a chamge in regulation to go through, so he killed it. HE's the one who didn't make any cost/benefit analysis in his political calculation to kill off the regulation. Progress stifled.
 
2013-06-04 05:25:52 PM  

Silly_Sot: That's the best the left can come up with? Okay, therefore, we must immediately ABANDON current forms of liberal democracy because, back in 1600, one could validly ask the question "Why are there no liberal democracies"? The liberal democracy did not exist until the 18th century. Likewise, one could, also in 1600, ask the question "Why are there no non-oligarchic republics"? Again, an 18th-century invention.

Hell's bells, liberals! How about asking in 1800 "Why hasn't slavery been abolished?"

Liberalism is a mental disorder.


true, we could get to a point in technological advancement where everyone can have everything they want and power generation is so clean that there is no pollution. Then libertarianism might...might work...
 
2013-06-04 05:26:21 PM  

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: Deregulation creating more opaque markets... that's causal. The Fed's toodling is just an attempt to limit the destructive path(s) of said cause, not a cause in and of itself.

however, over a decade of artificially depressed interest rates and virtually "free" money lent itself quite nicely to a drive in home demand and the subsequent bubble along with the explosion in MBSs freeing that same capital to be lent again at artificially depressed rates.


Ah, but the MBSs would have been priced correctly had the proper regulations been in place, which would have forced them to divulge the actual risk.
 
2013-06-04 05:26:54 PM  

skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I think you're jumping the shark on this one, friend.

look who's wrong again...


You do make a good point.  During WWII, the federal government specifically forbade the internment of Japanese Americans.  They all just went into the camps themselves.
 
2013-06-04 05:29:14 PM  

Rev.K: [inapcache.boston.com image 850x550]


Libertarian FEMA response


You do not have the right to be assisted. Assistance is an act of kindness born out of good moral fiber.

As for the question: Why aren't there any Libertarian countries?

The answer is that Libertarianism is the product of two savagely corrupted ideologies colliding: out of control Capitalism and Progressive social engineering. There isn't, and has never been, a country on Earth that can be logically compared to the United States - not in geography, land area, protection, population, wealth and government. Libertarians are new and only came into existence  here and now(relatively speaking). Libertarian-esque countries will eventually come into existence too, but they'll look more like Texas and Washington State, and not at all like the anarchist and/or nazi imagery conjured up by clever word smiths and dimwits.
 
2013-06-04 05:29:56 PM  

timujin: Gecko Gingrich: What rhymes with "orange"?

Sporange


Melange.
 
2013-06-04 05:29:57 PM  

Hydra: The defining characteristic between "public" and "private" is the ability for a given entity to have legal, legitimate use of force. A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head (Wal-Mart doesn't have its own army).


This is one of the big failures of libertarians.  They don't understand that "force" extends beyond physical force.  There are other ways of controlling people that don't involve literally putting a gun to someone's head or using the threat of such.  Economic force is one of them.  Walmart doesn't need a gun to force an employee who is less than a week's pay away from not being able to pay rent to do what they want.  No one can make a rational choice when 1 of the options leaves them and their family homeless.
 
2013-06-04 05:30:08 PM  

gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: Deregulation creating more opaque markets... that's causal. The Fed's toodling is just an attempt to limit the destructive path(s) of said cause, not a cause in and of itself.

however, over a decade of artificially depressed interest rates and virtually "free" money lent itself quite nicely to a drive in home demand and the subsequent bubble along with the explosion in MBSs freeing that same capital to be lent again at artificially depressed rates.

Ah, but the MBSs would have been priced correctly had the proper regulations been in place, which would have forced them to divulge the actual risk.


this is true, but with a free-floating interest rate the price of lending would put downward pressure on the demand for houses. As I said, a truly libertarian regime would introduce its own set of problems but the housing bubble wouldn't have been one of them - or would likely not have been one of them due to no money multiplier from FRB and interests rates rising as demand for money heated up
 
2013-06-04 05:30:11 PM  
and also unicorns.
 
2013-06-04 05:30:44 PM  

gimmegimme: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I think you're jumping the shark on this one, friend.

look who's wrong again...

You do make a good point.  During WWII, the federal government specifically forbade the internment of Japanese Americans.  They all just went into the camps themselves.


this doesn't even make a little bit of sense
 
2013-06-04 05:31:03 PM  
gimmegimme:
Why should I have to pay if my neighbor's house catches fire?

Because you live in the same apartment block as him. And if his apartment goes up in flames, 200 people are out on the street.
 
2013-06-04 05:32:06 PM  

tfresh: Libertarianism is nice but it relies too heavily on people being responsible for their own actions... and we can't have that!


That's a misread of fundamental human behavior -- people do *not* take responsibility for their own actions if there's a way they can prevent it from being spotted.  People try to get the most out of the least.  "People like to free ride" is the flipside of the "people like to own property" coin.
 
2013-06-04 05:32:24 PM  

skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I think you're jumping the shark on this one, friend.

look who's wrong again...

You do make a good point.  During WWII, the federal government specifically forbade the internment of Japanese Americans.  They all just went into the camps themselves.

this doesn't even make a little bit of sense


Exactly.
 
2013-06-04 05:33:24 PM  
Here's something although, the states involvement in segregation comes prior to civil rights & voting.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/ArticlePrintable.jsp?id=h-361 0

pretty interesting stuff, it's seems so alien nowadays, hence the request for literature.
 
2013-06-04 05:33:28 PM  

vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?


What central bank issues it?
 
2013-06-04 05:33:33 PM  

skullkrusher: http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

enjoy


I'm trying to find citations of when these laws were actually passed.

For instance, in Alabama, they made a law preventing blacks and whites from playing together in 1944, and additional laws against discrimination in the 1950s.  You know...  long after segregated businesses were already the norm.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~PUBLIC/civilrights/ordinances.html

In fact, the only reason for these laws existing at all this late in the game seems to be in anticipation of the upcoming Civil Rights Act, the same way that a lot of states are now trying to pass pro-NRA laws in anticipation of federal gun control.
 
2013-06-04 05:35:18 PM  

qorkfiend: Their "libertarianism" will last until the first pirate shows up.


Oh, I think pirates would be the last of their concerns, as they'd all be armed to the teeth.

I'd be more concerned with what happens when Jerry tries cooking a turkey with gunpowder in his untreated driftwood apartment complex.

//or at least I would be, if I gave a shiat whether anybody who moved there lived or died
//which I wouldn't, even if it weren't a complete pipe dream
//which it is
 
2013-06-04 05:36:34 PM  

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|

well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.


you must not fully understand what a fiat currency is

/hint: bitcoin isn't one
 
2013-06-04 05:36:39 PM  

schrodinger: skullkrusher: http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

enjoy

I'm trying to find citations of when these laws were actually passed.

For instance, in Alabama, they made a law preventing blacks and whites from playing together in 1944, and additional laws against discrimination in the 1950s.  You know...  long after segregated businesses were already the norm.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~PUBLIC/civilrights/ordinances.html

In fact, the only reason for these laws existing at all this late in the game seems to be in anticipation of the upcoming Civil Rights Act, the same way that a lot of states are now trying to pass pro-NRA laws in anticipation of federal gun control.


I think a time frame was/is important to the discussion but once you establish that, everything makes perfect sense.
 
2013-06-04 05:36:46 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: I'd be more concerned with what happens when Jerry tries cooking a turkey with gunpowder in his untreated driftwood apartment complex.


i'd be optimistic for a Bioshock theme park when all was said and done, tho.
 
2013-06-04 05:37:24 PM  
Why are there no libertarian countries?

You're forgetting Somalia
 
2013-06-04 05:38:13 PM  
Libertarians are mostly just anti-regulation corporate dupes or stoners but part of the appeal is having a philosophy that requires minimal thought because it's never tested.
 
Displayed 50 of 611 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report