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  
•       •       •

9967 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
 
2013-06-05 01:06:01 PM  

m00: What a sad state of affairs we are in when simply saying "I believe that personal liberty and freedom is a paramount value of an enlightened culture" causes so much hatred, scorn, derision and insults towards the speaker.


If you would just say simply that, I doubt there would be much complaint.

But you lot always take that and run with it to the point of absurdity.  And blithely dismiss the consequences because the premise is so self-evident (even if it is just the pretty dress-up version of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition).

For instance, there is a metric shiat-tonne of difference between "a paramount" and "the paramount", which is where all of the "logical" constructions of Libertarianism begin.
 
2013-06-05 01:06:35 PM  

m00: Going to the gym, I'll be on later :)


Let me guess, you have 26 minutes to get there . . .
 
2013-06-05 01:06:38 PM  

HighOnCraic: Southerners believed that segregation was ordained by God Himself, and that integration was part of Communist plot to destroy America. Do you think they would've changed their minds without outside influence?


That's an awfully broad brush ya got there.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but an awful lot of the desegregationists WERE Southerners. Turns out even MLK was a Southerner. crazy, I know.
 
2013-06-05 01:06:52 PM  

Rwa2play: hinten: Rwa2play: hinten: Meh, Libertarianism would work great if only everyone abided by the rules.

Libertarianism will never work because of human nature.  If Communism in the USSR never worked due to human nature, what makes Libertarians think they'll be able to pull it off?

Perhaps my jokes are to obtuse to land effectively.

Possibly; I was being serious however, no offense.


Let me try again then.

Meh, Libertarianism would work great if only everyone abided by the rules.

BTW, the "joke" works for most theoretical constructs. Just replace *ism with Communism, Anarchy, etc.
 
2013-06-05 01:08:53 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Southerners believed that segregation was ordained by God Himself, and that integration was part of Communist plot to destroy America. Do you think they would've changed their minds without outside influence?

That's an awfully broad brush ya got there.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but an awful lot of the desegregationists WERE Southerners. Turns out even MLK was a Southerner. crazy, I know.


Okay, fine:  the Southerners who fought to maintain segregation believed (see above).  What else have you got?
 
m00
2013-06-05 01:11:37 PM  

HighOnCraic: Why do you think Federal power wasn't technically necessary?


Oh, it was just to be semantically safe... only because the word "necessary" implies there is no other way given an infinite probability space. My mind just works like that :) Let's not get hung up on that -- I didn't intend for it to have bearing on the conversation. Just like studying isn't technically necessary to get a good grade at school. Still a good idea, though.

Okay, I'm off!
 
2013-06-05 01:14:51 PM  

HighOnCraic: Okay, fine: the Southerners who fought to maintain segregation believed (see above). What else have you got?


Still a broad brush, but I don't particularly care WHY they did.

Is it your supposition that because many libertarians have not adequately supported civil rights legislation (which isn't surprising from a philosophy that advocates against state interference with individual behavior), that they are defacto pro-segregationsists and/or closet racists?

Just curious if that is what you are actually driving at.
 
2013-06-05 01:34:49 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Okay, fine: the Southerners who fought to maintain segregation believed (see above). What else have you got?

Still a broad brush, but I don't particularly care WHY they did.

Is it your supposition that because many libertarians have not adequately supported civil rights legislation (which isn't surprising from a philosophy that advocates against state interference with individual behavior), that they are defacto pro-segregationsists and/or closet racists?

Just curious if that is what you are actually driving at.


I'm just saying that it's a huge blind spot in their philosophy that should've been obvious when they were trying to spread their ideas.

Hence, my original question in the thread:

If you people are so passionate about civil liberties, how do you reconcile Goldwater's support of segregation in "The Conscience of a Conservative"?

Goldwater's position was that even though he was against segregation, it wasn't his business (or the Federal government's) to tell Southern governments to end segregation.  I don't think he was a closet racist; I just think he was horribly indifferent to what was going on in the South at the time.

If their philosophy advocates against state interference with individual behavior, why didn't libertarians join the civil rights movement?  Did they not see how drastically Jim Crow laws interfered with individual behavior?
 
2013-06-05 01:35:43 PM  

HighOnCraic: I just cited a list of Jim Crow laws.  Specifically, the one in Georgia is applicable:  "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."


Can you tell us the actual year that the law was passed?

Can you tell me of any attempts from free market libertarians to fight these laws?

Wikipedia's article on Jim Crow laws doesn't even mention this stuff, because it has so little impact on the big picture.
 
2013-06-05 01:40:48 PM  

Phinn: vygramul: I'm saying that the Free Market failed to end [racism]

You mean the "free market" that did not exist because the markets for restaurants and transportation were prevented by legislation and police enforcement from being free?  That one?


You cannot simultaneously hold the position that the feds had no business interfering with state law AND that the free market would have eventually fixed it AND claim that the free market couldn't work.

So, yeah, the disingenuous bullshiat libertarians like to say about the CRA.
 
2013-06-05 01:41:36 PM  

RanDomino: vygramul
For a little while. Then their economy collapsed because they simply couldn't manage resources as well as prices could.

Conjecture. The USSR had an oil crash in the early 1980s and was less adept at using mass media manipulation to disrupt civil society than the US. If it was solely a matter of pricing then it could have fallen apart any time in the previous 30 or 70 years. Anyway, the US economy is currently collapsing so the comparison is null.


That the US economy is currently collapsing is even more conjecture.
 
2013-06-05 01:42:29 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: vygramul: And yet when Gorp takes the spear he just made, and holds it at Grog's neck and demands a third deer, you need authority to step in and enforce the contract. I can give you an example of two people having communism work in the stone-age, too. That doesn't mean the example is actually meaningful.

The threat to get another deer can happen with or without any pre-existing agreement. That's just "might makes right" and exists in all times and places. If you are arguing for "rule of law" needing an enforcing agent, then you are correct. But Capitalism doesn't NEED "rule of law" to exist.

(Also, you need more than two people to have communism.  Communism actually does require an enforcement agency, because it requires involuntary compliance. But Socialism, you definitely could have with a couple cave men. Very probably DID have.)


And so you see why you need government or you can't have capitalism.
 
2013-06-05 01:43:24 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: vygramul: And yet when Gorp takes the spear he just made, and holds it at Grog's neck and demands a third deer, you need authority to step in and enforce the contract. I can give you an example of two people having communism work in the stone-age, too. That doesn't mean the example is actually meaningful.

The threat to get another deer can happen with or without any pre-existing agreement. That's just "might makes right" and exists in all times and places. If you are arguing for "rule of law" needing an enforcing agent, then you are correct. But Capitalism doesn't NEED "rule of law" to exist.

(Also, you need more than two people to have communism.  Communism actually does require an enforcement agency, because it requires involuntary compliance. But Socialism, you definitely could have with a couple cave men. Very probably DID have.)


Oh, and Communist theory is explicitly stateless without an enforcement agency. You can have communism with two people just fine.
 
2013-06-05 01:45:48 PM  

schrodinger: HighOnCraic: I just cited a list of Jim Crow laws.  Specifically, the one in Georgia is applicable:  "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."

Can you tell us the actual year that the law was passed?

Can you tell me of any attempts from free market libertarians to fight these laws?

Wikipedia's article on Jim Crow laws doesn't even mention this stuff, because it has so little impact on the big picture.


I've done a little googling, but I haven't been able to find out when these laws were passed.  I think the doctrine of separate but equal became more acceptable after the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling.

As far as free-market libertarians fighting against these laws, that's something I've yet to see evidence of, which is why I think they have a blind spot when it comes to civil rights.
 
2013-06-05 01:52:02 PM  

RanDomino: A government exists to perpetuate itself rather than to fulfill any legitimate goal.


I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's wrong.


RanDomino: A bureaucracy is a specialist class which makes those decisions its exclusive domain.


Also wrong, or at least greatly exaggerated. A bureaucracy rises from specialization of responsibility and authority by rule rather than association or social status. I suppose "makes those decisions its exclusive domain" is a natural consequence of actually having a person or group of people <i>responsible</i> for something. You can't honestly hold someone responsible and then give them no jurisdiction or authority pertinent to that responsibility.

Well I suppose you CAN, but then you're setting yourself up for failure.


RanDomino: I meant "agency" in the sense of "institution". An entity in itself which provides a veil to the individuals and their actions.


I'm sorry if words have meanings. You've only transferred "agency" from being an operative word to being an instrumentation word: A government agency (as you used it) is merely the formal organizational structure through which the government's agency (as I've used it) is enacted.

My basic point remains the same: collective decision-making is a futile effort if there is no authority to enforce those decisions. Even if everyone follows the decision with no active enforcement, they do so almost certainly in deference to the group in some way or another... so I'd argue that the group still exerts authority, if only through social pressure.

But once someone realizes that there are no repercussions whatsoever for not honoring the decision, the whole thing collapses. If I could steal everything you own and the worst thing that could happen to me is being ostracized by the community? Might not be that bad if you got enough to steal... it's not like we're living in such a primitive state of society where being kicked out of the group means you're likely to die of exposure or get eaten by a leopard.


RanDomino: Then there is a difference between "the government" and "government" but the word must still be different to avoid confusion. I still doubt that you will find many people who would agree that direct democracy and/or collective decision-making and direct action, with federation-style coordination, is a "government".


Anyone who doesn't live in a anti-statist / anarchist / libertarian fugue will be able to recognize that collective decision making is the very essence of government, and that in order for society to exist, some individuals will necessarily be forced to forfeit some amount of freedom, personal wealth, etc. Every stick has a short end and someone has to get it.

The goal of <i>good</i> government, in my opinion, is to minimize these forfeitures and to spread them as evenly as possible across the population so everyone gets f*cked a little bit for the greater good, rather than some people getting totally f*cked while others use them as stepping stones towards their own selfish ends.
=Smidge=
 
2013-06-05 01:52:11 PM  

HighOnCraic: schrodinger: HighOnCraic: I just cited a list of Jim Crow laws.  Specifically, the one in Georgia is applicable:  "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."

Can you tell us the actual year that the law was passed?

Can you tell me of any attempts from free market libertarians to fight these laws?

Wikipedia's article on Jim Crow laws doesn't even mention this stuff, because it has so little impact on the big picture.

I've done a little googling, but I haven't been able to find out when these laws were passed.  I think the doctrine of separate but equal became more acceptable after the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling.

As far as free-market libertarians fighting against these laws, that's something I've yet to see evidence of, which is why I think they have a blind spot when it comes to civil rights.


Ah, my bad.  I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.
 
2013-06-05 01:53:24 PM  

ManRay: A question liberals have problems with:

Is there anything that you think is a good idea that the government should not be involved in?


Religion.
 
2013-06-05 01:55:56 PM  

schrodinger: HighOnCraic: schrodinger: HighOnCraic: I just cited a list of Jim Crow laws.  Specifically, the one in Georgia is applicable:  "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."

Can you tell us the actual year that the law was passed?

Can you tell me of any attempts from free market libertarians to fight these laws?

Wikipedia's article on Jim Crow laws doesn't even mention this stuff, because it has so little impact on the big picture.

I've done a little googling, but I haven't been able to find out when these laws were passed.  I think the doctrine of separate but equal became more acceptable after the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling.

As far as free-market libertarians fighting against these laws, that's something I've yet to see evidence of, which is why I think they have a blind spot when it comes to civil rights.

Ah, my bad.  I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.


No worries.
 
2013-06-05 02:38:55 PM  

HighOnCraic: I've done a little googling, but I haven't been able to find out when these laws were passed.  I think the doctrine of separate but equal became more acceptable after the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling.


Not just more acceptable; Plessy v. Ferguson was the Roe v. Wade of "separate but equal," effectively legimitizing it anywhere it was legislated.

As far as free-market libertarians fighting against these laws, that's something I've yet to see evidence of, which is why I think they have a blind spot when it comes to civil rights.

There's plenty out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism#Race_and_ se x
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/libertarians_an_5.html
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/06/16/david-e-bernstein/context-mat te rs-better-libertarian-approach-antidiscrimination-law

The issue just doesn't come up that often since it's been settled for 50 years now, and the issue usually revolves around the federal role vs. the state role in upholding discrimination (what is often forgotten is Goldwater's support of the 1957 Civil Rights Act) even though there were libertarians on the ground trying to get the Jim Crow laws repealed within their state legislatures.

schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.


Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.
 
2013-06-05 02:44:17 PM  

Hydra: HighOnCraic: I've done a little googling, but I haven't been able to find out when these laws were passed.  I think the doctrine of separate but equal became more acceptable after the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling.

Not just more acceptable; Plessy v. Ferguson was the Roe v. Wade of "separate but equal," effectively legimitizing it anywhere it was legislated.

As far as free-market libertarians fighting against these laws, that's something I've yet to see evidence of, which is why I think they have a blind spot when it comes to civil rights.

There's plenty out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism#Race_and_ se x
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/libertarians_an_5.html
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/06/16/david-e-bernstein/context-mat te rs-better-libertarian-approach-antidiscrimination-law

The issue just doesn't come up that often since it's been settled for 50 years now, and the issue usually revolves around the federal role vs. the state role in upholding discrimination (what is often forgotten is Goldwater's support of the 1957 Civil Rights Act) even though there were libertarians on the ground trying to get the Jim Crow laws repealed within their state legislatures.

schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.

Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.


I'll take some time to check out your links, but as to that last statement, sure, Jim Crow was a creature of government, but it was created by the locals who wanted it that way, and it was overturned mostly due the efforts of the Federal government.
 
2013-06-05 02:47:19 PM  
From the first link:

Most believe that the drive for profit in the marketplace will diminish or eliminate the effects of racism, which they tend to consider to be inherently collectivist. This causes a degree of dissonance among libertarians in federal systems such as in the U.S., where there is debate among libertarians about whether the federal government has the right to coerce states to change their democratically created laws.

This is supposed to be evidence of libertarians fighting against Jim Crow laws?
 
2013-06-05 02:50:56 PM  

SpiderQueenDemon: ManRay: A question liberals have problems with:

Is there anything that you think is a good idea that the government should not be involved in?

Religion.


I'd like the government involved in Religion in as much as setting up a rule and enforcing a rule that says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
 
2013-06-05 02:55:08 PM  

Hydra: schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.

Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.


...

Society, unfettered, had a few thousand years to rid itself of racism/discrimination/etc in the marketplace.  So it's the government's fault that it got tired of unfettered shiat and came to a (substandard, but than the status quo) legislative compromise.  Just a few more weeks... boy, that is all that society needed in order for unfetteredness to fart out a rainbow and make everything as good as gold.

That makes sense.
 
2013-06-05 02:59:35 PM  

Hydra: schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.

Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.


1)  Can you tell us the exact year these laws were passed?

2)  Are you actually going to make the argument that businesses weren't already racist before their passage, and only became racist as the result of they law?

Because seriously, you're dumb.
 
2013-06-05 03:00:20 PM  

gameshowhost: Hydra: schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.

Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.

...

Society, unfettered, had a few thousand years to rid itself of racism/discrimination/etc in the marketplace.  So it's the government's fault that it got tired of unfettered shiat and came to a (substandard, but than the status quo) legislative compromise.  Just a few more weeks... boy, that is all that society needed in order for unfetteredness to fart out a rainbow and make everything as good as gold.

That makes sense.


It's worse than that - the federal government was WRONG to fix those state laws, which the free market would have fixed. That's the libertarian argument. Point out the FM failed, and they retreat to the government being at fault again. They're totally disingenuous.
 
2013-06-05 03:04:40 PM  
From a libertarian/Republican blog:

The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.
Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.
The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected.


Our message has potential to appeal to minority audiences, but it will never ring true unless it accounts for some realities that many Republicans are loathe to acknowledge. For example, many hard-working, successful African Americans got their start on the economic ladder with progressive hiring and promotion policies at the Post Office or other Federal agencies.  It was a muscular, activist Federal government that gave African-Americans their first opportunities to participate in the American Dream.
Extreme anti-government rhetoric devoid of nuance or constraint creates well-justified fear in minority communities.  Libertarian values have historically failed them, leaving them exposed to terrifying oppression. Republicans cannot continue to clumsily paint government as a fount of endless evil and hope to appeal to minority communities whose own family stories render that message hollow.
In appealing to minority communities, we need a message of small government that is more nuanced than libertarians will tolerate. Smaller government is a better prescription for personal liberty and economic success, but only if it remains strong enough to protect basic civil rights. A government small enough to "drown in a bathtub" turns society into a playground for petty tyrants.

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/
 
2013-06-05 03:06:25 PM  

vygramul: gameshowhost: Hydra: schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.

Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.

...

Society, unfettered, had a few thousand years to rid itself of racism/discrimination/etc in the marketplace.  So it's the government's fault that it got tired of unfettered shiat and came to a (substandard, but than the status quo) legislative compromise.  Just a few more weeks... boy, that is all that society needed in order for unfetteredness to fart out a rainbow and make everything as good as gold.

That makes sense.

It's worse than that - the federal government was WRONG to fix those state laws, which the free market would have fixed. That's the libertarian argument. Point out the FM failed, and they retreat to the government being at fault again. They're totally disingenuous.


It's the m.o., man.
 
2013-06-05 03:14:37 PM  
Another source, in answer to the question:  how would libertarians have ended racial segregation in the 1960s?

First, we have to consider the TWO potential categories of racial segregation.  Those done by purely private entities, such as private business or private corporation (assuming they are NOT acceptig government money or government contracts).  And those done by government, entities receiving government money and entities working under government contract.
In the first category, libertarians would rightly do NOTHING.Private individuals, business and private corporations have a right to associate with whoever they wish and to refrain from doing business with whoever they wish.  If they did not wish to do business with a minority, hire minorities or require minorities to sit in a certain area, that is their right.  It is the minorities reciprocal right NOT to do business or seek employment from such a business.

https://mises.org/community/forums/t/14089.aspx

This ignores the fact that businesses and corporations were required by state laws to maintain segregation.  As long as "absolute freedom!" includes the freedom to discriminate, people will have a problem with that.
 
2013-06-05 03:15:32 PM  

vygramul: gameshowhost: Hydra: schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.

Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.

...

Society, unfettered, had a few thousand years to rid itself of racism/discrimination/etc in the marketplace.  So it's the government's fault that it got tired of unfettered shiat and came to a (substandard, but than the status quo) legislative compromise.  Just a few more weeks... boy, that is all that society needed in order for unfetteredness to fart out a rainbow and make everything as good as gold.

That makes sense.

It's worse than that - the federal government was WRONG to fix those state laws, which the free market would have fixed. That's the libertarian argument. Point out the FM failed, and they retreat to the government being at fault again. They're totally disingenuous.


No, you idiot. There was no free market precisely BECAUSE of the laws that mandated racism.

You are exhibiting typical Statist thinking -- use the heavy hand of the State to mandate certain behavior (here, racial discrimination in customers), and then blame "the free market" (which was eliminated by the State's mandates) for the resultant behavior.

It's kind of like listing a bunch of horrible examples of free market disasters in a thread about how free market societies have never existed.
 
2013-06-05 03:19:00 PM  

Phinn: vygramul: gameshowhost: Hydra: schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.

Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.

...

Society, unfettered, had a few thousand years to rid itself of racism/discrimination/etc in the marketplace.  So it's the government's fault that it got tired of unfettered shiat and came to a (substandard, but than the status quo) legislative compromise.  Just a few more weeks... boy, that is all that society needed in order for unfetteredness to fart out a rainbow and make everything as good as gold.

That makes sense.

It's worse than that - the federal government was WRONG to fix those state laws, which the free market would have fixed. That's the libertarian argument. Point out the FM failed, and they retreat to the government being at fault again. They're totally disingenuous.

No, you idiot. There was no free market precisely BECAUSE of the laws that mandated racism.

You are exhibiting typical Statist thinking -- use the heavy hand of the State to mandate certain behavior (here, racial discrimination in customers), and then blame "the free market" (which was eliminated by the State's mandates) for the resultant behavior.

It's kind of like listing a bunch of horrible examples of free market disasters in a thread about how free market societies have never existed.


So are you saying Rand was wrong about the free market fixing it without federal intervention?

Are you also saying the federal government had to intervene to allow the free market to work?
 
2013-06-05 03:36:03 PM  

Phinn: No, you idiot. There was no free market precisely BECAUSE of the laws that mandated racism.


The law also mandates that libertarians aren't allowed to engage in mass child rape orgy.

So according to your logic, the only reason that libertarians don't engage in mass child rape orgies is because the law prevents them from doing so.

And if there was no law against mass child rape orgies, all libertarians would immediately respond by engaging in them.

Because apparently, libertarians believe that the individuals are incapable of making any decisions on their own unless the government forces them into doing it.

Once again, can you tell us the exact years that these laws were passed?
 
2013-06-05 03:37:50 PM  

Hydra: HighOnCraic: I've done a little googling, but I haven't been able to find out when these laws were passed.  I think the doctrine of separate but equal became more acceptable after the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling.

Not just more acceptable; Plessy v. Ferguson was the Roe v. Wade of "separate but equal," effectively legimitizing it anywhere it was legislated.

As far as free-market libertarians fighting against these laws, that's something I've yet to see evidence of, which is why I think they have a blind spot when it comes to civil rights.

There's plenty out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism#Race_and_ se x
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/libertarians_an_5.html
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/06/16/david-e-bernstein/context-mat te rs-better-libertarian-approach-antidiscrimination-law

The issue just doesn't come up that often since it's been settled for 50 years now, and the issue usually revolves around the federal role vs. the state role in upholding discrimination (what is often forgotten is Goldwater's support of the 1957 Civil Rights Act) even though there were libertarians on the ground trying to get the Jim Crow laws repealed within their state legislatures.

schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.

Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.


From your third link:

"For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons, libertarians are presumptively strongly opposed to any government regulation of the private sector.  It naturally follows that libertarians presumptively oppose restrictions on private sector discrimination. It's hardly an indication of racial animus, or even insensitivity, for libertarians to enunciate the exact same position on antidiscrimination laws that they take in all other contexts.

The proliferation of antidiscrimination laws explains why libertarians are loath to concede the principle that the government may ban private sector discrimination."

How is this evidence that libertarians are in favor of civil rights laws that ban private sector discrimination?
 
2013-06-05 03:45:12 PM  
More from Hydra's link:

"From a philosophical perspective, libertarianism and Jim Crow laws are completely at odds. Consistent with their classical liberal heritage, libertarians believe that the government must treat all its citizens as individuals with equal rights, and therefore may not discriminate on arbitrary grounds, like race.  The government must also apply its laws fairly and impartially, including by protecting members of unpopular minority groups from private violence.  A penumbra of this opposition to government discrimination is that the right to vote must not be denied for arbitrary reasons.  Finally, the government may not require private parties to discriminate."

Now that's wonderful!  I'd love to see a quote from a libertarian who made that point prior to '64, you know, when it actually mattered.  Goldwater, the most prominent libertarian at the time, seemed to believe that the Federal government should stay out of the way and let the South work things out on their own.
 
2013-06-05 03:46:58 PM  

Phinn: vygramul: gameshowhost: Hydra: schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.

Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.

...

Society, unfettered, had a few thousand years to rid itself of racism/discrimination/etc in the marketplace.  So it's the government's fault that it got tired of unfettered shiat and came to a (substandard, but than the status quo) legislative compromise.  Just a few more weeks... boy, that is all that society needed in order for unfetteredness to fart out a rainbow and make everything as good as gold.

That makes sense.

It's worse than that - the federal government was WRONG to fix those state laws, which the free market would have fixed. That's the libertarian argument. Point out the FM failed, and they retreat to the government being at fault again. They're totally disingenuous.

No, you idiot. There was no free market precisely BECAUSE of the laws that mandated racism.

You are exhibiting typical Statist thinking -- use the heavy hand of the State to mandate certain behavior (here, racial discrimination in customers), and then blame "the free market" (which was eliminated by the State's mandates) for the resultant behavior.

It's kind of like listing a bunch of horrible examples of free market disasters in a thread about how free market societies have never existed.


Brilliant counterargument, where you managed to ignore everything.
 
2013-06-05 04:40:08 PM  

Hydra: HighOnCraic: I've done a little googling, but I haven't been able to find out when these laws were passed.  I think the doctrine of separate but equal became more acceptable after the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling.

Not just more acceptable; Plessy v. Ferguson was the Roe v. Wade of "separate but equal," effectively legimitizing it anywhere it was legislated.

As far as free-market libertarians fighting against these laws, that's something I've yet to see evidence of, which is why I think they have a blind spot when it comes to civil rights.

There's plenty out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism#Race_and_ se x
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/libertarians_an_5.html
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/06/16/david-e-bernstein/context-mat te rs-better-libertarian-approach-antidiscrimination-law

The issue just doesn't come up that often since it's been settled for 50 years now, and the issue usually revolves around the federal role vs. the state role in upholding discrimination (what is often forgotten is Goldwater's support of the 1957 Civil Rights Act) even though there were libertarians on the ground trying to get the Jim Crow laws repealed within their state legislatures.


I'd be interested in seeing some citations of libertarians on the ground trying to get Jim Crow laws repealed within their state legislatures.

Also, from you last link:

The laudable goal of the ever-broadening antidiscrimination edifice is to achieve a fairer, more just society.  Laudable goals, however, don't justify giving the government excessive authority, or disguising the implications of doing so.  I'm reminded of the "Sexual Harassment Panda" episode of South Park.  Kyle's father explains that antidiscrimination law tells us what we can say and do in the workplace and elsewhere. Kyle responds, "But isn't that fascism?"  His father retorts, "No, because we don't call it fascism."

/Comparing anti-discrimination laws to fascism doesn't sound all that supportive.
 
2013-06-05 04:52:12 PM  

m00: There sure is a lot of effort from the media going into writing opinion pieces to discredit Libertarianism. And here I thought it was irrelevant!

What a sad state of affairs we are in when simply saying "I believe that personal liberty and freedom is a paramount value of an enlightened culture" causes so much hatred, scorn, derision and insults towards the speaker.


Just because a phrase sounds good in theory doesn't mean it's actually a good thing in practice.  Your argument here basically boils down to "How can anyone be against liberty?!"  The people arguing against libertarianism understand that modern society is too complex to live by the simplistic maxim that maximizing liberty is of paramount importance.  Oh and we've also seen what unfettered free markets gave us during the industrial revolution.
 
2013-06-05 04:59:36 PM  

schrodinger: Phinn: No, you idiot. There was no free market precisely BECAUSE of the laws that mandated racism.

The law also mandates that libertarians aren't allowed to engage in mass child rape orgy.

So according to your logic, the only reason that libertarians don't engage in mass child rape orgies is because the law prevents them from doing so.

And if there was no law against mass child rape orgies, all libertarians would immediately respond by engaging in them.

Because apparently, libertarians believe that the individuals are incapable of making any decisions on their own unless the government forces them into doing it.

Once again, can you tell us the exact years that these laws were passed?


You need a course in basic logic.

First, laws don't apply only to libertarians. So, the issue is not what libertarians would or wouldn't do in the absence of legislation, but what all people do.

Second, I said that the State once MANDATED discrimination. It does not follow that I necessarily implied that ALL discrimination resulted from the mandates. My argument is that the laws that MANDATED racial discrimination of customers must have had some effect in the promotion of that behavior. Therefore, if they had been repealed (or held unconstitutional on free association grounds), it follows that the incidence of racial discrimination would have decreased to some degree.

To what degree? We'll never know, because the State never allowed it to happen. It went straight from mandating racial discrimination to prohibiting it, and never passed through a phase of using no force at all on people, one way or the other.

One logical conclusion is inescapable -- the existence of racial discrimination cannot be blamed on the principle of free association in a society that has prohibited free association as to race.
 
2013-06-05 05:07:36 PM  

Phinn: You need a course in basic logic.


State law kept the free market from working.
The feds shouldn't have changed state law.
The free market would have eventually fixed this.

You have no business complaining about others' logic.
 
2013-06-05 05:09:44 PM  

Phinn: schrodinger: Phinn: No, you idiot. There was no free market precisely BECAUSE of the laws that mandated racism.

The law also mandates that libertarians aren't allowed to engage in mass child rape orgy.

So according to your logic, the only reason that libertarians don't engage in mass child rape orgies is because the law prevents them from doing so.

And if there was no law against mass child rape orgies, all libertarians would immediately respond by engaging in them.

Because apparently, libertarians believe that the individuals are incapable of making any decisions on their own unless the government forces them into doing it.

Once again, can you tell us the exact years that these laws were passed?

You need a course in basic logic.

First, laws don't apply only to libertarians. So, the issue is not what libertarians would or wouldn't do in the absence of legislation, but what all people do.

Second, I said that the State once MANDATED discrimination. It does not follow that I necessarily implied that ALL discrimination resulted from the mandates. My argument is that the laws that MANDATED racial discrimination of customers must have had some effect in the promotion of that behavior. Therefore, if they had been repealed (or held unconstitutional on free association grounds), it follows that the incidence of racial discrimination would have decreased to some degree.

To what degree? We'll never know, because the State never allowed it to happen. It went straight from mandating racial discrimination to prohibiting it, and never passed through a phase of using no force at all on people, one way or the other.

One logical conclusion is inescapable -- the existence of racial discrimination cannot be blamed on the principle of free association in a society that has prohibited free association as to race.


So you think that the people who voted (in many cases unanimously) for legislators who enacted mandatory discrimination laws would just choose to stop discriminating on their own, without discrimination being made illegal?  Keep in mind that the people who supported segregation believed that they were obeying God's will, and that integration would inevitably lead to Communism.
 
2013-06-05 05:14:55 PM  

Baryogenesis: m00: There sure is a lot of effort from the media going into writing opinion pieces to discredit Libertarianism. And here I thought it was irrelevant!

What a sad state of affairs we are in when simply saying "I believe that personal liberty and freedom is a paramount value of an enlightened culture" causes so much hatred, scorn, derision and insults towards the speaker.

Just because a phrase sounds good in theory doesn't mean it's actually a good thing in practice.  Your argument here basically boils down to "How can anyone be against liberty?!"  The people arguing against libertarianism understand that modern society is too complex to live by the simplistic maxim that maximizing liberty is of paramount importance.  Oh and we've also seen what unfettered free markets gave us during the industrial revolution.


I thought free market societies never existed. Isn't that what the Salon article says?

You know nothing about the history of libertarian thought. It was formed in its currently-recognizable form in the West during the Indistrial Revolution, for the express purpose of opposing the thick web of anti-market restrictions that dominated late 18th to late 19th century England and America. The nearly-endless list of price controls, labor restrictions, and state-sponsored exclusions and monopolies seems particularly libertarian to you? Libertarians joined together and formed an identity specifically to oppose those laws, precisely because they were so harmful to the ordinary person.
 
2013-06-05 05:20:53 PM  

vygramul: Phinn: You need a course in basic logic.

State law kept the free market from working.
The feds shouldn't have changed state law.
The free market would have eventually fixed this.

You have no business complaining about others' logic.


I never said "the Feds shouldn't have changed state law."

Give the strawman a break. He's a goner.

The libertarian position at the time would have been to repeal (or invalidate) those state laws, thereby making the markets for restaurants, transportation, hotels, etc. MORE FREE.

That could have been done on grounds of the inalienable human rights of free association and freedom of contract (Lochner), both of which Proggies despise.
 
2013-06-05 05:23:50 PM  

Phinn: I never said "the Feds shouldn't have changed state law."

Give the strawman a break. He's a goner.


But you haven't committed to the position the Feds SHOULD have.
 
2013-06-05 05:34:24 PM  

vygramul: Phinn: I never said "the Feds shouldn't have changed state law."

Give the strawman a break. He's a goner.

But you haven't committed to the position the Feds SHOULD have.


Libertarianism stands in favor of any means that promotes free association.

Forced racial integration was anti-libertarian, and stems from the same hideous mindset that gave us forced racial segregation.

Many states also had anti-miscegenation laws in place, too, once upon a time. They are an affront to all free people. An equally illegitimate use of force would be for the State to be involved in the process of selecting our sexual partners for us, and prohibiting racial discrimination in marriage. It's obvious to most people that free association should be the operative principle in mate selection.

If you can understand this in the context of marriage, why do you have such a brain glitch when it comes to other areas of social life. Freedom works. Stop being such a control freak.
 
2013-06-05 05:37:21 PM  

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: I never said "the Feds shouldn't have changed state law."

Give the strawman a break. He's a goner.

But you haven't committed to the position the Feds SHOULD have.

Libertarianism stands in favor of any means that promotes free association.

Forced racial integration was anti-libertarian, and stems from the same hideous mindset that gave us forced racial segregation.

Many states also had anti-miscegenation laws in place, too, once upon a time. They are an affront to all free people. An equally illegitimate use of force would be for the State to be involved in the process of selecting our sexual partners for us, and prohibiting racial discrimination in marriage. It's obvious to most people that free association should be the operative principle in mate selection.

If you can understand this in the context of marriage, why do you have such a brain glitch when it comes to other areas of social life. Freedom works. Stop being such a control freak.


You still haven't answered the question. Should the federal government have intervened?
 
2013-06-05 05:53:24 PM  

vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: I never said "the Feds shouldn't have changed state law."

Give the strawman a break. He's a goner.

But you haven't committed to the position the Feds SHOULD have.

Libertarianism stands in favor of any means that promotes free association.

Forced racial integration was anti-libertarian, and stems from the same hideous mindset that gave us forced racial segregation.

Many states also had anti-miscegenation laws in place, too, once upon a time. They are an affront to all free people. An equally illegitimate use of force would be for the State to be involved in the process of selecting our sexual partners for us, and prohibiting racial discrimination in marriage. It's obvious to most people that free association should be the operative principle in mate selection.

If you can understand this in the context of marriage, why do you have such a brain glitch when it comes to other areas of social life. Freedom works. Stop being such a control freak.

You still haven't answered the question. Should the federal government have intervened?


The federal government DID intervene! It ruled in Brown v. The Bd. of Education that the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson was no longer enforceable. That's good. Plessy was wrong.

That was the right way to keep going -- extend that decision to invalidate all mandatory-segregation laws. Plessy was a mandatory-segregation case (streetcars, I think). It took a while for mandatory-segregation laws to be invalidated after Brown. Some were still around in the 1960s when the Civil Rights Act was enacted, which prohibited discrimination. Therefore, there was NO TIME when government respected free association.

It is therefore impossible to blame the freedom of association for the existence of racism in those industries, when such freedom never substantially existed.
 
2013-06-05 06:04:16 PM  

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: You need a course in basic logic.

State law kept the free market from working.
The feds shouldn't have changed state law.
The free market would have eventually fixed this.

You have no business complaining about others' logic.

I never said "the Feds shouldn't have changed state law."

Give the strawman a break. He's a goner.

The libertarian position at the time would have been to repeal (or invalidate) those state laws, thereby making the markets for restaurants, transportation, hotels, etc. MORE FREE.
.

The "libertarian" position **at** the time (Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley, etc.) was that it was none of the Feds' damn business what kind of stuff the states legislated.  George Wallace called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "a sad day for **individual** freedom and liberty."  (My emphasis)

Phinn: freedom of contract (Lochner)
.

Ron Paul **still** complains that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 impairs this right which he claims to value above all others.
 
2013-06-05 06:20:20 PM  

Phinn: and freedom of contract (Lochner)
.


Too often interpreted by those who hide behind it as a license to screw over other people, which I am convinced is the "right" that "libertarians" value the most.  Lochner himself, after all, got caught working his bakery employees over sixty hours a week.
 
2013-06-05 06:40:44 PM  
Phinn
I highly recommend a book called Debt: The First 5,000 Years.

Ironic. Usually I'm the one promoting it.

I mis-phrased that. I was trying to throw that widely-held-but-erroneous belief in the libertarians' faces.


m00
You're honestly arguing against a self-identified libertarian using a parody/strawman of what you think libertarians believe as a counter-example?

I'm telling you how shiat could actually function so that people wouldn't get farked over by de facto warlords without a State. Form federated militias. Like this one
recollectionbooks.com


BojanglesPaladin
RanDomino really only argues with absurdist strawmen.

What else am I supposed to do? All of your arguments are absurd and made of straw.


vygramul
Oh, and Communist theory is explicitly stateless without an enforcement agency. You can have communism with two people just fine.

Marxist utopian Communism, you mean?


Smidge204
I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's wrong.

They may start out with other purposes, but that's how they go.

Also wrong, or at least greatly exaggerated. A bureaucracy rises from specialization of responsibility and authority by rule rather than association or social status.

I'm sorry if words have meanings. You've only transferred "agency" from being an operative word to being an instrumentation word: A government agency (as you used it) is merely the formal organizational structure through which the government's agency (as I've used it) is enacted.

Anyone who doesn't live in a anti-statist / anarchist / libertarian fugue will be able to recognize that collective decision making is the very essence of government


Yeah, I'm not going to play that game, sorry. Everyone knows what government and bureaucracy mean- someone else makes the decisions and someone else is in charge. If that's not precise enough for you then I'm sorry.

But once someone realizes that there are no repercussions whatsoever for not honoring the decision, the whole thing collapses. If I could steal everything you own and the worst thing that could happen to me is being ostracized by the community?

And the stuff reclaimed, obviously. Killing in self-defense is generally understood as acceptable if suboptimal. In the first place, strangers shouldn't be allowed that kind of access until they've proven themselves over the course of probably years.

and that in order for society to exist, some individuals will necessarily be forced to forfeit some amount of freedom, personal wealth, etc. Every stick has a short end and someone has to get it.

Don't conflate wealth and freedom.

The goal of good government, in my opinion, is to minimize these forfeitures and to spread them as evenly as possible across the population so everyone gets f*cked a little bit for the greater good, rather than some people getting totally f*cked while others use them as stepping stones towards their own selfish ends.

Selfishness is greatly aided by concentrated power.


HighOnCraic
government as a fount of endless evil and hope to appeal to minority communities whose own family stories render that message hollow.

The libertarian counterpoint is that black militias had some success, and that gun control laws were enacted to disarm them. I'm not sure if I agree since I don't know the timeline well enough, but I like the principle.
 
2013-06-05 07:01:33 PM  

RanDomino: I'm telling you how shiat could actually function so that people wouldn't get farked over by de facto warlords without a State. Form federated militias. Like this one


But even that one was only effective because of the personality of the man who was generally acknowledged as its driving force.  I'd never call Durruti a warlord--he got things done by persuasion, not by force--but the FAI militia (and Spanish Anarchism generally) was never the same after his death.
 
2013-06-05 07:07:31 PM  

HighOnCraic: If you people are so passionate about civil liberties, how do you reconcile Goldwater's support of segregation in "The Conscience of a Conservative"?


Whoah. Careful with the "you people" there.

Also, I don't try to reconcile Goldwater with the Libertarian Party's platform and/or philosophy, since Goldwater did not identify as a "L"ibertarian, but rather as a conservative. I'm confident he opposed both legalized prostitution and marijuana for instance.

But in answer to you question, why did some (non-racist) people who could be considered libertarians oppose Federal Desegregation and Integration efforts with more vigor than they opposed the local and state segregation laws themselves?

Probably because the Feds bypassed the democratic process and sent in troops.

But you would really have to ask someone who could be considered a libertarian who was politically active at the time. Few modern libertarians were. The ones I know, who are of the right age (above 60) say they mostly opposed the paternalistic, heavy-handed, "we know better than you" approach that was taken, and in a region already hyper-sensitive to "yankee carpet baggers" coming in and telling people what to do, no matter what it is, it is understandable that even people who did not support segregation would have been opposed to the federal intervention.

vygramul: And so you see why you need government or you can't have capitalism.


No I don't. Because government is not necessary for capitalism. All you need is more than one party willing to exchange goods or services for goods or services. Capitalism certainly thrives in an ordered society under the rule of law, and for THAT you need an enforcement agency.
 
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 »






Report