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.

(The American Conservative)   RAND PAUL: "I'm not a firm believer in democracy. It gave us Jim Crow." Please wait until my huge bucket of popcorn is ready before posting   (theamericanconservative.com) divider line 255
    More: Interesting, Rand Paul, Jim Crow, Kentucky Senators, Mises, New Republic, historically black colleges, Jonathan Chait, Ayn Rand  
•       •       •

2081 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2013 at 4:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-24 02:42:59 PM  
This statement will hurt him in the South Carolina primary. . .
 
2013-06-24 02:49:07 PM  
He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.
 
2013-06-24 02:50:21 PM  

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


My parents always used to overrule me in their own form of 'tyranny of the majority' too. All I wanted was to play Nintendo just a little while longer, but nooo! I had to go to bed!

Stupid parents.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 02:50:29 PM  

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


I am certain that he meant exactly that.
 
2013-06-24 02:51:46 PM  
I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.
 
2013-06-24 02:53:22 PM  

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


Still, it was the majority (Senators and House members from outside of the South) that used Federal power to end Jim Crow.
 
2013-06-24 02:58:30 PM  

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


Yeah, there is a reason we're a Republic, not a direct democracy.
 
2013-06-24 03:07:51 PM  

Aarontology: I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.


RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights...for example, I can't have a cigar bar any more, and you say, "well, that has nothing to do with race" - the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie Nazis come in here and tell me. [...] The point is that its not all about that. It's not all about race relations, it's about controlling property, ultimately.

As far as I can tell, the Jim Crow laws were only about Seperate But Equal.  So yes, he is blatantly contradicting himself here
 
2013-06-24 03:08:22 PM  
It gave us you, too, you miserable dumbf*ck
 
2013-06-24 03:11:14 PM  

HighOnCraic: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Still, it was the majority (Senators and House members from outside of the South) that used Federal power to end Jim Crow.


And it was a majority that allowed it to stay for 100 years.   What's your point?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 03:13:42 PM  

Thoguh: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Yeah, there is a reason we're a Republic, not a direct democracy.


The two words mean different things. It's possible to be a non-democratic republic like North Korea or a democratic non-republic like the UK, or a democratic republic like the USA.

"Democracy" refers to the source of political authority and "republic" ref errs to the structure of government.

It's not surprising that people on the right would prefer us to be a non-democratic republic like NK.
 
2013-06-24 03:17:56 PM  
Zoning Laws are tyranny!

/this is what these idiots actually believe.
 
2013-06-24 03:19:59 PM  

dittybopper: HighOnCraic: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Still, it was the majority (Senators and House members from outside of the South) that used Federal power to end Jim Crow.

And it was a majority that allowed it to stay for 100 years.   What's your point?


Believe me, I know it took far too long, but it worked out eventually.  If anything, it was the fear of a strong, centralized government that held back progress.

Paul's point was that democracy allowed Jim Crow laws to be passed.
Was ending Jim Crow laws somehow not related to democracy?

/How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?
 
2013-06-24 03:25:12 PM  
Senator Paul seems to be just aces at taking a solid footing and using it to climb up to a nonsense mountain.  I was impressed that he used an actual filibuster instead of just "threatening" as they do nowadays, and hey he even had what seemed like some legitimate beefs about the drone program.  Then it turns out that all his "questions" had already been answered, officially and firmly, before the filibuster.  And then he comes out vouching for domestic drones.

So, yes, again, one of the hazards of democracy is the tyranny of the majority.  However, Jim Crow had nothing to do with his 1st-world problems of not being able to poison your staff and customers just because you want to.
 
2013-06-24 03:26:11 PM  

HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?


He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.
 
2013-06-24 03:26:58 PM  
"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically?The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

"National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."

http://www.southernstudies.org/2008/02/william-f-buckleys-peculiar-s ou th.html


That's not democracy.
 
2013-06-24 03:28:58 PM  

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


This is not what he said. He didn't say "Democracy has vulnerabilities" or "democracy has weaknesses". That would be ok, because while it recognizes the issues in there, it still shows some awareness that every governmental system has some form of abuse possible, but democrac is a pretty good way to handle it.

But he didn't say that. He said he doesn't believe in democracy. That's because he's a Randian (pun not intended). He seems to fundamentally believe in the truth that there is a class of people, the Maker class, which is actually better, and better suited to govern. It's like an inverse Marxism.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 03:32:13 PM  
It's kind of odd that he used that example.  He is referring to the constitutional government of the USA so this obviously isn't the "republic not a democracy" stuff.
 
2013-06-24 03:42:31 PM  
The GOP's best and brightest...

Heh.
 
2013-06-24 03:50:36 PM  

factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.


Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
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."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/
 
2013-06-24 03:58:40 PM  
fc08.deviantart.net
 
2013-06-24 04:03:03 PM  

DamnYankees: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

This is not what he said. He didn't say "Democracy has vulnerabilities" or "democracy has weaknesses". That would be ok, because while it recognizes the issues in there, it still shows some awareness that every governmental system has some form of abuse possible, but democrac is a pretty good way to handle it.

But he didn't say that. He said he doesn't believe in democracy. That's because he's a Randian (pun not intended). He seems to fundamentally believe in the truth that there is a class of people, the Maker class, which is actually better, and better suited to govern. It's like an inverse Marxism.


RTFA:
As I implied earlier, however, I don't want to make too much of this: whether from intellectual mellowing or political calculation, Rand Paul seems to be coming to grips with the limits of libertarian thinking on civil rights. He is behaving less like an ideological android and more like a politician.
I say, good for him.


In other words, it's a good thing.  What he said wasn't wrong:  A majority unchecked can indeed oppress a minority when insufficient protections for the individual exist.   Those protections don't have to be governmental, though generally we think of them as such.

Actually, Jim Crow was *WORSE*, in that an actual minority was able to oppress a majority.  Eventually we straightened it all out, but it's a conversation that was avoided for a century.  Of course, in a libertarian sense, had the blacks in the deep south had good access to firearms, it never would have happened in the first place.  It's hard to lynch a person with a .38.

In fact, gun control is the last vestige of Jim Crow in the United States.

"Never Intended to be Applied to the White Population": Firearms Regulation and Racial Disparity--The Redeemed South's Legacy to a National Jurisprudence?

The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration

The Racist Roots of Gun Control
 
2013-06-24 04:04:47 PM  

HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
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."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/


And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.
 
2013-06-24 04:07:06 PM  
democracy didn't give us that, a representative republic gave us that.
 
2013-06-24 04:12:13 PM  

Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]


Wake up, sheeple!!
 
2013-06-24 04:13:03 PM  

Aarontology: I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.


He and his dad.

Federal laws restricting the abuse of civil rights are oppression of the worst kind because they were enacted by our duly elected federal representatives and senators.  State laws on the other hand abusing civil rights are 100% A-OK because they were enacted by our duly elected state representatives and senators.

QED.
 
2013-06-24 04:13:06 PM  
Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.
 
2013-06-24 04:14:03 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.


would you? No? QED then.
 
2013-06-24 04:14:21 PM  

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


static8.depositphotos.com
 
2013-06-24 04:15:31 PM  

dittybopper: HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
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."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/

And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


Because all the blacks would have been shot, and there would have been no need for either.
 
2013-06-24 04:15:42 PM  
But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.
 
2013-06-24 04:16:02 PM  

SlothB77: democracy didn't give us that, a representative republic gave us that.


I'll never under why it's so popular on Fark to act like democracy and republic are mutually exclusive terms.
 
2013-06-24 04:17:01 PM  
Alas, the US is no longer a Republic but has become a Democracy.  The two reasons for this are: 1. With the House of Representatives membership capped at 435, each member represents many thousands of people.  2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.
 
2013-06-24 04:17:14 PM  

Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]


Actually it's one wolf and four sheep; but two of the sheep have voted for mutton because the wolf has convinced them that they can become wolves someday.
 
2013-06-24 04:17:24 PM  

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


Yeah, Democracy is bad because it upheld segregation laws.

Every other political system simply enslaved its minorities.
 
2013-06-24 04:18:00 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.


I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.
 
2013-06-24 04:18:37 PM  

Hetfield: SlothB77: democracy didn't give us that, a representative republic gave us that.

I'll never under why it's so popular on Fark to act like democracy and republic are mutually exclusive terms.


cuz people like to think they're smart by saying shiat that everyone already knows
 
2013-06-24 04:18:40 PM  
Democracy gave us Jim Crow?

[quizzicaldog.jpg]
 
2013-06-24 04:19:40 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.


You wouldn't make such a claim without proof, would you?
 
2013-06-24 04:20:14 PM  

dittybopper: Of course, in a libertarian sense, had the blacks in the deep south had good access to firearms, it never would have happened in the first place. It's hard to lynch a person with a .38.


And if only the Jews had been armed, they would have defeated the Wermacht single-handedly.
 
2013-06-24 04:21:08 PM  
i519.photobucket.com


/Is there a term or word for a group of people who consistently put their foot in their mouths?
//"Farkers" not acceptable
 
2013-06-24 04:21:31 PM  

Thoguh: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Yeah, there is a reason we're a Republic, not a direct democracy.


Which is not the argument he was making.
 
2013-06-24 04:21:39 PM  

ObamaTheOmnipotent: [i519.photobucket.com image 315x450]


/Is there a term or word for a group of people who consistently put their foot in their mouths?
//"Farkers" not acceptable


babies? They're really farking weird like that.
 
2013-06-24 04:24:34 PM  

Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.


Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.
 
2013-06-24 04:25:13 PM  

skullkrusher: babies? They're really farking weird like that.


Goddamn babies.
 
2013-06-24 04:25:13 PM  

skullkrusher: I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.


No, he's fine with government mandated segregation.  As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.
 
2013-06-24 04:26:58 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: skullkrusher: I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

No, he's fine with government mandated segregation.  As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.


you have a cite? I know that's a neo-confederate sort of position to take but I have never seen him actually take it
 
2013-06-24 04:27:15 PM  

skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.

I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.


So he is fine with the federal government forcing laws onto states?
 
2013-06-24 04:28:01 PM  

Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


Empty-suit evil genius Obama can't do anything right but has usurped power from the other branches and will rule with an iron fist for life.
 
2013-06-24 04:28:11 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.


Rand Paul has always held the same position on this, and every other issue: he stands for the side of the issue that will give him the most media coverage.


/American Randstand
 
2013-06-24 04:28:56 PM  

Aarontology: I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.


And free markets don't forget how free markets will sort everything out.
 
2013-06-24 04:28:59 PM  

dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated. They couldn't act, they couldn't organize, they couldn't revolt and they couldn't obtain power because they lacked the accessibility to achieve those aims.

For its not guns that make a people free, but education. Guns mean absolutely jack squat in terms of freedom. What use is freedom if you have not the knowledge or the understanding to use it properly (and you're too ignorant to know when it's being taken away)?

Only one thing can prevent tyranny: Education.

A highly informed and educated citizenry always demands more out of its government and is the best safeguard against tyranny. All dictatorships, once they obtain power, immediately seize all communications and education channels. If you can control what the people read or hear, you can control what they say or think. Keep the populace distant, ignorant and separated, and you never have to fear counter-revolution.

This is how societies in the past maintained slave populations that often numbered more than citizens.

So forget guns. Be more afraid of anyone taking away your access to high education. That's what totalitarianisms do. Whosoever tries to restrict your access to knowledge and information wants to control you.
 
2013-06-24 04:29:28 PM  

dittybopper: HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
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."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/

And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


I've said this before, but I'm not convinced that arming Black Americans would have resulted in anything but genocide on a massive scale. Didn't work for the Native Americans.
 
2013-06-24 04:29:42 PM  

skullkrusher: Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.

would you? No? QED then.


I wouldn't WANT to; but if it was work in an unsafe mine or let your kids starve....?
 
2013-06-24 04:30:18 PM  

Corvus: Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


I think it was truncated.  I believe the original went something like:

Rules like a monarch
Stings like a bee.
 
2013-06-24 04:31:00 PM  

skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: skullkrusher: I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

No, he's fine with government mandated segregation.  As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.

you have a cite? I know that's a neo-confederate sort of position to take but I have never seen him actually take it


Come to think of it, that's his dad, not Rand; at least that I can remember.
 
2013-06-24 04:31:37 PM  

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.

would you? No? QED then.

I wouldn't WANT to; but if it was work in an unsafe mine or let your kids starve....?


hey, slow your roll - I was just pointing out the obvious. Who would want to work in an unsafe mine? ;)
 
2013-06-24 04:31:59 PM  

Hollie Maea: Alas, the US is no longer a Republic but has become a Democracy.  The two reasons for this are: 1. With the House of Representatives membership capped at 435, each member represents many thousands of people.  2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.


i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-24 04:32:14 PM  

Ishkur: For its not guns that make a people free, but education.


Which is why Teabaggers are all for cutting education budgets and demonizing teachers as union thugs.
 
2013-06-24 04:32:37 PM  

Corvus: skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.

I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

So he is fine with the federal government forcing laws onto states?


I don't know for sure, Corvus. It would seem he is, however, since he does speak approvingly of the federal government's intervention in the case of Jim Crow laws
 
2013-06-24 04:33:13 PM  

meat0918: skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: skullkrusher: I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

No, he's fine with government mandated segregation.  As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.

you have a cite? I know that's a neo-confederate sort of position to take but I have never seen him actually take it

Come to think of it, that's his dad, not Rand; at least that I can remember.


certainly does sound like a RON PAUL thing to say. I've never seen RAND PAUL say it though.
 
2013-06-24 04:33:26 PM  
Rand Paul and his senile father are not firm believers in reality, either...

Pie in the sky idealism and a total disregard for history and human nature are something libertarians have in common with Communists in the early 20th Century... Luckily, there's not nearly enough followers of these clowns to actually take over a country by violent revolution or elections. But boy, oh boy, can they biatch, moan and bloviate on the internet. : )
 
2013-06-24 04:34:05 PM  

skullkrusher: Who would want to work in an unsafe mine?


I can nary think of any one who would.
 
2013-06-24 04:34:53 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: skullkrusher: Who would want to work in an unsafe mine?

I can nary think of any one who would.


NARY INDEED!

*mike drop*
 
2013-06-24 04:35:38 PM  

vernonFL: Zoning Laws are tyranny!

/this is what these idiots actually believe.


They can definitely be used tyrannically by petty tyrants.
 
2013-06-24 04:36:02 PM  

Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]


So you prefer what to Democracy then?
 
2013-06-24 04:37:59 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.

I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

So he is fine with the federal government forcing laws onto states?

I don't know for sure, Corvus. It would seem he is, however, since he does speak approvingly of the federal government's intervention in the case of Jim Crow laws


Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?
 
2013-06-24 04:38:29 PM  

dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


Really former soldiers who also had access to firearms would have lost to former slaves who had probably never held guns before?
 
2013-06-24 04:39:10 PM  

vpb: "republic" ref errs to the structure of government.


No it does not.  Republic means "of the people" and is only in contrast to a monarchy, i.e. a government by the people instead of by an elite sub-group.   It has absolutely nothing to do with structure, and "we ain't a democracy we's a republic" is an utterly meaningless sentence.

/jimmies status - rustled.
 
2013-06-24 04:39:55 PM  

Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?


what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?


what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league
 
2013-06-24 04:39:56 PM  

Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?
 
2013-06-24 04:40:45 PM  

skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: skullkrusher: I'm pretty sure he has spoken about people's rights to discriminate in private establishments, not government mandated segregation.

No, he's fine with government mandated segregation.  As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.

you have a cite? I know that's a neo-confederate sort of position to take but I have never seen him actually take it

Come to think of it, that's his dad, not Rand; at least that I can remember.

certainly does sound like a RON PAUL thing to say. I've never seen RAND PAUL say it though.


He says he believes states should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.
 
2013-06-24 04:41:07 PM  

Ishkur: dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.

You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated. They couldn't act, they couldn't organize, they couldn't revolt and they couldn't obtain power because they lacked the accessibility to achieve those aims.

For its not guns that make a people free, but education. Guns mean absolutely jack squat in terms of freedom. What use is freedom if you have not the knowledge or the understanding to use it properly (and you're too ignorant to know when it's being taken away)?

Only one thing can prevent tyranny: Education.

A highly informed and educated citizenry always demands more out of its government and is the best safeguard against tyranny. All dictatorships, once they obtain power, immediately seize all communications and education channels. If you can control what the people read or hear, you can control what they say or think. Keep the populace distant, ignorant and separated, and you never have to fear counter-revolution.

This is how societies in the past maintained slave populations that often numbered more than citizens.

So forget guns. Be more afraid of anyone taking away your access to high education. That's what totalitarianisms do. Whosoever tries to restrict your access to knowledge and information wants to control you.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-24 04:41:26 PM  

Hollie Maea: Alas, the US is no longer a Republic but has become a Democracy.


Aaaaahhh!  My jimmies!!!
 
2013-06-24 04:42:45 PM  
Which is why we have (or ought to have, or used to have) a republic.  Where the whims of any one group or majority couldn't simply vote away the rights or property of another group.
 
2013-06-24 04:42:59 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league


He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?
 
2013-06-24 04:44:23 PM  

HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
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."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/


The state governments weren't so weak that they couldn't oppress blacks. They had plenty of strength to do that. Don't you think if those governments had been weakened then freedom could have blossomed for blacks? And isn't that basically what happened? The Feds were able to weaken the state governments' power allowing blacks to become more free.
 
2013-06-24 04:44:29 PM  

ArkPanda: dittybopper: 
And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.

Because all the blacks would have been shot, and there would have been no need for either.


^^^THIS.

See: Tulsa Race Riot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
 
2013-06-24 04:46:20 PM  

physt: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

[static8.depositphotos.com image 850x884]


Neither of the Pauls are stopped clocks, right twice a day.  They're both clocks running backwards at irregular speeds which change at random intervals.  They're right on very random occasion one every few blue moons - but never for longer than one unit of Planck time.
 
2013-06-24 04:46:40 PM  

skullkrusher: what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league


Sorry I thought you actually read the article:

Though he would still not give them a definitive answer on his position on the Civil Rights Act, he did say that he believed federal intervention had been justified. "I'm not a firm believer in democracy," he explained. "It gave us Jim Crow." '

So why is it ok for federal intervention for Blacks but not for gays?
 
2013-06-24 04:46:41 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: As long as it's STATE'S doing it.  Remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the States either.


The constitution explicitly forbids the states to segregate or allow slavery.

You're an idiot.
 
2013-06-24 04:46:45 PM  

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league

He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?


I don't know, Corvus. You'll have to ask him.
 
2013-06-24 04:47:12 PM  

spongeboob: Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]

So you prefer what to Democracy then?


Constitutional republics?
 
2013-06-24 04:47:40 PM  

SnakeLee: RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights...for example, I can't have a cigar bar any more, and you say, "well, that has nothing to do with race" - the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie Nazis come in here and tell me. [...] The point is that its not all about that. It's not all about race relations, it's about controlling property, ultimately.


You know what, Rand? If that property is owned entirely by one person or whatever, I might kinda agree with you (but probably not).

This is what irritates me about most "Libertarians" - they forget that corporations really aren't people. They're not even "made up of people". They are completely fictitious legal entities conjured up out of nothing and given a distinct legal personality in contravention of all natural law so that certain people can't be held liable for their actions. They are complete and utter contrivances of a government.

Libertarians want the government to literally create a new person for them, but they don't want the government to have any say in how that new person behaves. Well, too bad - you can't have it both ways. That new person that was created ex nihilo? Yeah, it doesn't have a religion or a race. It has no beliefs about class or sex. It cannot be prejudiced or racist and hide behind its religion or its "beliefs" because it doesn't have any. It exists solely because we as a society, through our government, have agreed to pretend that it exists.

If you want to be a racist dickbag, go ahead - but don't ask the rest of us to then shield you from liability and create a completely fictitious person for you. You don't want to play by the rules? Fine, but then you don't get any of the benefits either.
 
2013-06-24 04:47:58 PM  

Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


Exactly. The POTUS has way more power than the monarch of the UK. It's not even close.
 
2013-06-24 04:48:14 PM  

Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


To be fair, HM didn't say what kind of monarch.  Obama has less power than (let's say) Kim Jong-Un, but more than Queen Elizabeth II.
 
2013-06-24 04:48:18 PM  

Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?


You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.
 
2013-06-24 04:49:43 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league

He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?

I don't know, Corvus. You'll have to ask him.


Well if you don't know then why are you answering people for him in this thread and implying you know what his positions are??
 
2013-06-24 04:49:50 PM  

Corvus: So why is it ok for federal intervention for Blacks but not for gays?


The libertarian answer to the Gay marriage question is a tax/legal code which doesn't show any preference towards married or unmarried individuals.  Whom you choose to associate with should be no business of the government and thus government should show no preference to any one group.

Equal protection/application of the law should mean that a married couple shouldn't enjoy tax benefits that a single person does not have.  For decades, politicians have used the tax code to enrich particular segments of the population they think will support their ideas
 
2013-06-24 04:51:24 PM  

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league

He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?

I don't know, Corvus. You'll have to ask him.

Well if you don't know then why are you answering people for him in this thread and implying you know what his positions are??


I just asked for a citation where he supported Jim Crow laws. I don't know where he draws the line between ok intervention and not ok intervention. That isn't what I was discussing. This conversation isn't happening how you wish (or imagine) it were so unless you want to join in the actual conversation that is happening, just stop.
 
2013-06-24 04:53:22 PM  

jigger: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Exactly. The POTUS has way more power than the monarch of the UK. It's not even close.


Don't be so sure.
 
2013-06-24 04:54:07 PM  

o5iiawah: Corvus: So why is it ok for federal intervention for Blacks but not for gays?

The libertarian answer to the Gay marriage question is a tax/legal code which doesn't show any preference towards married or unmarried individuals.  Whom you choose to associate with should be no business of the government and thus government should show no preference to any one group.

Equal protection/application of the law should mean that a married couple shouldn't enjoy tax benefits that a single person does not have.  For decades, politicians have used the tax code to enrich particular segments of the population they think will support their ideas


So then why are libertarians then only use this argument for Same Sex marriage and are pretty quite about it for none-same sex marriage.

I will tell you why, because it's a shame argument only made to justify a Libertarians who have intolerant  views.
 
2013-06-24 04:54:53 PM  
So, the idea is, more than 50% of the people are right more that 50% of the time.

Guess what ...sometimes more than 50% of the people are wrong.

Obviously including our "representatives". Especially when they stop representing us.
Or in this case, really stupid as well:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ

That is why sometimes an ideal is more important than a simple majority rule.

I think, for the most part, our brand of democracy is fine. It's the campaign finance rules, etc. that are farked. Get the money out of politics and get our representatives back to representing.

Do I have the answers? No. But I am willing to facilitate in any way I can to help get them.
 
2013-06-24 04:56:12 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league

He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?

I don't know, Corvus. You'll have to ask him.

Well if you don't know then why are you answering people for him in this thread and implying you know what his positions are??

I just asked for a citation where he supported Jim Crow laws. I don't know where he draws the line between ok intervention and not ok intervention. That isn't what I was discussing. This conversation isn't happening how you wish (or imagine) it were so unless you want to join in the actual conversation that is happening, just stop.


Ok I agree with you. His "state's rights" beliefs are a shame and he takes them to justify the things for things he wants and ignores them like in Jim Crow laws and Civili Rights Act when they are unpopular.

I agree.
 
2013-06-24 04:57:27 PM  

Triumph: jigger: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Exactly. The POTUS has way more power than the monarch of the UK. It's not even close.

Don't be so sure.


Hmm. I wonder how you have a secret veto of a public bill.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

Why isn't this understood? Don't the MPs at least in the House of Commons know what they're getting into? Once they're in office they never ever tell anyone about having to gain approval from the Queen on certain bills? Why not? I tell you, I don't get it.
 
2013-06-24 04:58:09 PM  

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Then why were you answer for him before, if you don't know?

what?

Corvus: So you knew at first but then when I had you explain you didn't know anymore. Did you forget his stance on the position in the last minute?

So then why are some federal laws pushed on the state OK and others are not? where does he make this distinction? Or is it whenever it becomes convenient for him "state's rights" exist?

what the fark are you talking about? I have never seen him say he thinks Jim Crow laws should be legal so I asked for proof of that. He does, however, seem to be ok with the feds putting an end to Jim Crow laws so that, at the very least, contradicts any previous stance he may have taken in favor of Jim Crow laws.

bark up some other tree. This one is out of your league

He said he believe the Civil Rights Act should be legal, which is a federal law pushed onto the states. So when is that ok and when is it not. Because he is saying it's not ok for protecting of abortion or protections on gays.

So where does this magical line get created?

I don't know, Corvus. You'll have to ask him.

Well if you don't know then why are you answering people for him in this thread and implying you know what his positions are??

I just asked for a citation where he supported Jim Crow laws. I don't know where he draws the line between ok intervention and not ok intervention. That isn't what I was discussing. This conversation isn't happening how you wish (or imagine) it were so unless you want to join in the actual conversation that is happening, just stop.

Ok I agree with you. His "state's rights" beliefs are a shame and he takes them to justify the things for things he wants and ignores them like in Jim Crow laws and Civili Rights Act when they are unpopular.

I agree.


ok. Pretty sure the world is gonna end now and it's gonna be your fault.
 
2013-06-24 05:02:09 PM  

Perlin Noise: Get the money out of politics and get our representatives back to representing.


Pretty funny. And I thought you were serious until that part.
 
2013-06-24 05:03:41 PM  

jigger: Triumph: jigger: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Exactly. The POTUS has way more power than the monarch of the UK. It's not even close.

Don't be so sure.

Hmm. I wonder how you have a secret veto of a public bill.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

Why isn't this understood? Don't the MPs at least in the House of Commons know what they're getting into? Once they're in office they never ever tell anyone about having to gain approval from the Queen on certain bills? Why not? I tell you, I don't get it.


The Guardian is winning this year with the freak-you-out news stories,
 
2013-06-24 05:04:05 PM  
Wow, the butthurt in that article was palpable.

" We lost two elections to a Black Guy, so Democracy is Racist and we should never hold elections again (if theres a possibility we might lose)."

Sounds like someone is afraid of getting their arses handed to them in the next election cycle...

/ If you think Democracy is Evil, dont vote!
 
2013-06-24 05:05:32 PM  

Heraclitus: Wow, the butthurt in that article was palpable.

" We lost two elections to a Black Guy, so Democracy is Racist and we should never hold elections again (if theres a possibility we might lose)."

Sounds like someone is afraid of getting their arses handed to them in the next election cycle...

/ If you think Democracy is Evil, dont vote!


The modern Republican Party is a party that claims to love democracy so much that they do everything in their power to ensure the smallest number of people possible get to vote.
 
2013-06-24 05:06:29 PM  

jigger: The state governments weren't so weak that they couldn't oppress blacks. They had plenty of strength to do that. Don't you think if those governments had been weakened then freedom could have blossomed for blacks? And isn't that basically what happened? The Feds were able to weaken the state governments' power allowing blacks to become more free.


It wasn't just the state governments; it was also local governments and private actors such as the KKK, often intertwined with each other.
 
2013-06-24 05:08:13 PM  

Thoguh: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Yeah, there is a reason we're a Republic, not a direct democracy.


I really wish people would stop making this dumb claim. You do realize that republic and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, right? The definition of republic is simply that the right to rule isn't hereditary (ie. not a monarchy). Therefore, all democracies are, by definition, also republics.

In my own personal experience, it is almost exclusively republicans that make this uninformed claim. My guess is because they like that republic is the root word for the name of their party, as opposed to democracy which sounds too much like dem libruls.
 
2013-06-24 05:08:26 PM  
I would love to have people ask him why thinks it was so wonderful for the federal government to step in against discrimination against blacks in state laws then but now he thinks that is federal over reach now for gays?

Answer: because he is full of shiat. If it wasn't political suicide today he would be supporting those segregation laws of the states still.
 
2013-06-24 05:09:02 PM  
In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them. Laws and the republic get in the way with that, especially with all these Constitutional "protections" and "rights" and other nonsense, like checks and balances, when inherently, we realize that true liberty comes from the heel of the boot of our betters who are free to do as they will with us, so long as we have the opportunity to do the same to others as long as it doesn't challenge their hegemony...

At least he's honest about it.
 
2013-06-24 05:09:10 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: jigger: The state governments weren't so weak that they couldn't oppress blacks. They had plenty of strength to do that. Don't you think if those governments had been weakened then freedom could have blossomed for blacks? And isn't that basically what happened? The Feds were able to weaken the state governments' power allowing blacks to become more free.

It wasn't just the state governments; it was also local governments and private actors such as the KKK, often intertwined with each other.


Ok.
 
2013-06-24 05:09:22 PM  

Triumph: spongeboob: Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]

So you prefer what to Democracy then?

Constitutional republics?


It's a Benjamin Franklin quote, by the way. It's a pithy explanation of why you need branches of government, a constitution and a Bill of Rights before you can embark on democratic rule.
 
2013-06-24 05:09:56 PM  

WraithSama: In my own personal experience, it is almost exclusively republicans that make this uninformed claim. My guess is because they like that republic is the root word for the name of their party, as opposed to democracy which sounds too much like dem libruls.


Eh, Democrats also make it when it suits their purposes. People think it makes them sound smart.
 
2013-06-24 05:11:25 PM  

hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.


Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.
 
2013-06-24 05:12:01 PM  
Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.
 
2013-06-24 05:14:03 PM  

jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.


It's not a conspiracy, it's their stated goals.
 
2013-06-24 05:15:37 PM  

jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.


Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.
 
2013-06-24 05:17:41 PM  

WraithSama: Thoguh: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Yeah, there is a reason we're a Republic, not a direct democracy.

I really wish people would stop making this dumb claim. You do realize that republic and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, right? The definition of republic is simply that the right to rule isn't hereditary (ie. not a monarchy). Therefore, all democracies are, by definition, also republics.

In my own personal experience, it is almost exclusively republicans that make this uninformed claim. My guess is because they like that republic is the root word for the name of their party, as opposed to democracy which sounds too much like dem libruls.


QFT
 
2013-06-24 05:19:07 PM  

Corvus: jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.


Under a particular and fairly perverse capitalist conception of "property".
 
2013-06-24 05:20:50 PM  

Corvus: jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.


Truly, property is freedom. Unless of course, you happen to be a sharecropper, then property is binding, and until your debts are cleared, then you are essentially a form of captive labor, which is thus a commodity. It's not slavery, it's just a matter of enforcing debt payment, and I'm certain that no where in history can we find a single instance of anyone jiggering with such arrangements to make payment an impossibility, because corporations and businessmen are such upstanding citizens. You can tell that they're upstanding and moral by all the money that they have. Money flows virtue, and thus those who have the most money must be the most virtuous. STUDY IT OUT SHEEPLE!
 
2013-06-24 05:23:59 PM  

Corvus: jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.


Using property rights arguments is a way to communicate to certain types of people the ideas of individual liberty and freedom from coercive force. Some people do put ownership and property rights above all, so you can convince them to eschew the use of coercive force on others by reminding them that everyone is the owner of themselves and that you shouldn't infringe upon their property rights. Some of these people go on to continue spreading these ideas in this way. It's just one perspective from which to look at it.
 
2013-06-24 05:25:33 PM  

Corvus: jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.


Including their right to use property that doesn't belong to them, like the air and the oceans.
 
2013-06-24 05:27:27 PM  

Hetfield: SlothB77: democracy didn't give us that, a representative republic gave us that.

I'll never under why it's so popular on Fark to act like democracy and republic are mutually exclusive terms.


Because it's a popular meme among libertarians and right-wingers generally, none of whom are too fond of democracy, because the more people who get to vote, the more those people tend to vote that they should have rights too.   The idea that people who aren't white,straightm christian men of middle class or above have actual rights that people who do fall into those categories should recognize is anathema to them.
 
2013-06-24 05:30:54 PM  
That article was painful to read.

Rand Paul is the best politician to come along in my generation. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but he's a critical thinker and, I believe, an honest and moral man. We have three co-equal branches of government so Rand couldn't go running roughshod over existing bureaucracies.

He's brave for having said that to an all black audience. That's probably why most people cringe when he opens his pie hole - they cringe because they're scared on him.
 
2013-06-24 05:31:15 PM  

Karac: Neither of the Pauls are stopped clocks, right twice a day.  They're both clocks running backwards at irregular speeds which change at random intervals.  They're right on very random occasion one every few blue moons - but never for longer than one unit of Planck time.


Or, as I like to put it:

"Ron [or Rand] Paul occasionally arrives at the correct conclusion by starting with false premises  and applying logical fallacies."
 
2013-06-24 05:34:34 PM  

Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?

You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.


Well my original statement said that SINCE the President rules like a monarch, that means that the US has become a Democracy instead of a Republic.  You noted that my premise was false.  I was just curious to know if you would agree with my conclusion if the premise were true.
 
2013-06-24 05:36:35 PM  

MJMaloney187: That article was painful to read.

Rand Paul is the best politician to come along in my generation. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but he's a critical thinker and, I believe, an honest and moral man. We have three co-equal branches of government so Rand couldn't go running roughshod over existing bureaucracies.

He's brave for having said that to an all black audience. That's probably why most people cringe when he opens his pie hole - they cringe because they're scared on him.


3/10
 
2013-06-24 05:39:55 PM  

Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?

You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.

Well my original statement said that SINCE the President rules like a monarch, that means that the US has become a Democracy instead of a Republic.  You noted that my premise was false.  I was just curious to know if you would agree with my conclusion if the premise were true.

No, if the president (a non-hereditary position) ruled like a monarch, the term for that is dictatorship or despotism, not democracy.
 
2013-06-24 05:41:10 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.

Including their right to use property that doesn't belong to them, like the air and the oceans.


And then they seem to omit the part about, just how massive would the state have to become to thoroughly protect all property rights, and how big would the court system have to be to process all the property-protection suits?  An odd oversight coming from a bunch of guys who want to shrink the government.
 
2013-06-24 05:42:41 PM  

Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?

You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.

Well my original statement said that SINCE the President rules like a monarch, that means that the US has become a Democracy instead of a Republic.  You noted that my premise was false.  I was just curious to know if you would agree with my conclusion if the premise were true.



If the President ruled like a monarch, that would be an Autocracy. But he doesn't, so it's not.
 
2013-06-24 05:46:25 PM  
Rand Pauls best friends
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-24 05:46:34 PM  

Ishkur: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?

You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.

Well my original statement said that SINCE the President rules like a monarch, that means that the US has become a Democracy instead of a Republic.  You noted that my premise was false.  I was just curious to know if you would agree with my conclusion if the premise were true.


If the President ruled like a monarch, that would be an Autocracy. But he doesn't, so it's not.


Good point.  And other good point.

OK, fun's over:  I should point out that my original statement is a more or less word for word quote from an American "Thinker" article posted on here the other day.  Possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read.  I was curious to see how it would fare in the wild.
 
2013-06-24 05:47:42 PM  
Mrtraveler01:

3/10

I never troll. Ya betta ax sumbody.

Paul's trustworthy, too. I forgot to gush that particular sentiment.
 
2013-06-24 05:52:46 PM  

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


Exactly. If "democracy" is "majority rule", and the majority "rules" that minority races should not be allowed to have certain jobs, shop in certain places, or live in certain neighborhoods, then such a democracy easily leads to injustice. However, we are not allowed to admit to that, since it would violate the dogma of "democracy is an unmixed blessing, majority rule is always right". There are times when the majority is wrong. This is why we need to enshrine fundamental individual rights in such a way that it is very inconvenient to legally mess with them--even if the majority doesn't want to respect the rights of the minority.

Unconstrained democracy is simply another way to say "mob rule".
 
2013-06-24 05:52:59 PM  
Corvus: So then why are libertarians then only use this argument for Same Sex marriage and are pretty quite about it for none-same sex marriage.

I will tell you why, because it's a shame argument only made to justify a Libertarians who have intolerant  views.


Not sure if I that jumbled mishmosh of words qualifies as English, but I'll take a stab...

You think libertarians only take that stance on Gay marriage and dont care about hetero marriage?  You've obviously never heard of the flat/fair tax movement which many libertarians support.  The entire idea of libertarianism is an ideology of "Leave me the fark alone and I'll leave you the fark alone" so I'm not sure where you find some deep rooted intolerance there.

Perhaps you'd like to list a few well-known libertarians who are ardent supporters of laws which promote Judeo-Christian marriage
 
2013-06-24 05:56:45 PM  
The founding fathers also feared what they called "Mob rule"
 
2013-06-24 05:57:04 PM  
So democracy is added to  the list of things conspiring against the GOP?  I've read several articles complaining about democracy in the last few days from right wing sources.
 
2013-06-24 05:59:02 PM  

Tymast: So democracy is added to  the list of things conspiring against the GOP?  I've read several articles complaining about democracy in the last few days from right wing sources.


Democracy sounds like "Democrat".
 
2013-06-24 06:01:57 PM  
Well that settles it. Rand Paul is a Nazi.
 
2013-06-24 06:02:49 PM  
You know what else democracy gave us?

flcenterlitarts.files.wordpress.com

upload.wikimedia.org

Apparently, that product of democracy didn't bother Mr. Paul at all. In fact, I bet he longs to return to those days.

/Look at those mighty flag lapel pins. Those two are super patriots. I bet they went off and fought in Vietnam just for shiats and giggles....oh wait...
 
2013-06-24 06:03:28 PM  

Hollie Maea: Tymast: So democracy is added to  the list of things conspiring against the GOP?  I've read several articles complaining about democracy in the last few days from right wing sources.

Democracy sounds like "Democrat".


A friend of mine went into a long screed about this country not being a Democracy it's a REPUBLIC! the other day.  He was flummoxed when I posted the dictionary defintions of each and pointed out that the two are not mutually exclusive and that states like North Korea and Venezuala are also republics.  I then did a google search on the "democracy versus republic" meme and saw that of the thousands of entries they were about 99% from right-wing nutjob sites like WND.  These people are real deep thinkers.
 
2013-06-24 06:05:31 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: You know what else democracy gave us?


I didn't realize a Republican-leaning SCOTUS was considered a democratic-leaning institution.
 
2013-06-24 06:07:53 PM  

whidbey: TheShavingofOccam123: You know what else democracy gave us?

I didn't realize a Republican-leaning SCOTUS was considered a democratic-leaning institution.


If you got enough money....
 
2013-06-24 06:08:03 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: You know what else democracy gave us?

[flcenterlitarts.files.wordpress.com image 238x341]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x293]

Apparently, that product of democracy didn't bother Mr. Paul at all. In fact, I bet he longs to return to those days.

/Look at those mighty flag lapel pins. Those two are super patriots. I bet they went off and fought in Vietnam just for shiats and giggles....oh wait...


Yeah, "democracy", the guy that 500,000 fewer votes became president. Yippee!
 
2013-06-24 06:08:12 PM  

Hollie Maea: Tymast: So democracy is added to  the list of things conspiring against the GOP?  I've read several articles complaining about democracy in the last few days from right wing sources.

Democracy sounds like "Democrat".


Democracy is over-rated. I mean, really, "will of the people" what's up with that? Which people? Could the right people be assured that their will is carried out? Democracy is a real and tangible danger to the ascension of this nation, and it must be stopped.
 
2013-06-24 06:10:14 PM  

dittybopper: HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
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."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/

And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


What makes you think that having guns = automatic win?

If the British had guns, America never would've won independence.

If the Confederates had guns, they would've won the Civil War.

If the Americans had guns in Hawaii, the Japanese never would've attacked Pearl Harbor.

If the Allies had guns, Operation Market Garden would've been a total success.

If the Nazis had guns, we'd be trading snarky comments in German right now.

If the Americans had guns, we would've easily won the Vietnam War.

Which makes me think, maybe if we'd brought some guns to Iraq and Afghanistan, things might've gone differently.I just hope that the NSA agent assigned to read this thread makes a note to advise his superiors that if we decide to get involved in Syria, we should probably bring some guns.We can't lose!

/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.
 
2013-06-24 06:11:59 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: You know what else democracy gave us?

[flcenterlitarts.files.wordpress.com image 238x341]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x293]

Apparently, that product of democracy didn't bother Mr. Paul at all. In fact, I bet he longs to return to those days.

/Look at those mighty flag lapel pins. Those two are super patriots. I bet they went off and fought in Vietnam just for shiats and giggles....oh wait...


What bothers me most about the stupid lapel pins is that they got Obama to wear one. Rather than saying "this is stupid, you're saying I don't love my country because I don't wear a lapel pin? Wouldn't a better expression of love for my country be volunteering, working hard, and ensuring a fair shake for all Americans? Doesn't the lapel pin seem trite and like lip-service? And there are plenty of instances where your guy didn't wear one either!"...

Rather than saying that, he wore a lapel pin. It really irritated me.
 
2013-06-24 06:12:11 PM  

Silly_Sot: Exactly. If "democracy" is "majority rule", and the majority "rules" that minority races should not be allowed to have certain jobs, shop in certain places, or live in certain neighborhoods, then such a democracy easily leads to injustice. However, we are not allowed to admit to that, since it would violate the dogma of "democracy is an unmixed blessing, majority rule is always right". There are times when the majority is wrong. This is why we need to enshrine fundamental individual rights in such a way that it is very inconvenient to legally mess with them--even if the majority doesn't want to respect the rights of the minority.
Unconstrained democracy is simply another way to say "mob rule".



What you are really talking about is Direct Democracy, which is not in practice in any nation in the world for exactly the reasons you describe.

What most European countries (and Canada and Australia) have is a Parliamentary Democracy: They vote for representatives, and the representatives come together to form parties and coalitions. But the mob does not -- and can not -- decide anything. It does not vote on specific bills or legislation and it does not elect the leader of the country (the majority party does that). Theoretically, the party in power ought to represent the mob's interests, but that's not guaranteed as the party in power rarely ever speaks for the mob or passes legislation in the mob's favor (at least, not all the time). It is an interesting buffer zone -- separation of the people from the powers -- that seems to work as a safeguard, however it can also produce tyranny of one-party rule (ie: Particracy, like in Mexico) if the party in power feels it is not beholden to anyone.

What America has is a Representative Republic which is closer to a Direct Democracy but not quite. The mob votes on specific legislation and the mob elects the leader of the country. By having a more direct link to the seats of power, the people have more control over the processes of government, but that also runs the risk of tyranny of the majority.

Either way, it is interesting to note that no system seems to be perfect and works the same way all the time forever. In fact, all systems seems to naturally gravitate toward oligarchy, and then autocracy, if given enough time.
 
2013-06-24 06:12:36 PM  

Marshal805: Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.


Well put
 
2013-06-24 06:15:13 PM  
Jim Crow laws were passed by state legislators elected by white citizens (the ones who could vote, that is) who believed that segregation was mandated by Jesus Himself and that integration was a Communist plot to destroy America (or at least, that's the sort of propaganda they'd been fed for years by the White Citizens' Council newsletter and the National Review).Does anyone believe that, absent the Civil Rights Act, a free market would've magically appeared in the South where businesses would voluntarily integrate, and or that no one would burn down the first business to do so?
 
2013-06-24 06:17:13 PM  
So let's skip to the good part:

Who's voting for Paul in 2016? Or is that also democracy he doesn't support?
 
2013-06-24 06:17:59 PM  
Compartmentalizing Jim Crow is similar to compartmentalizing DADT, in the sense that they were wrong in and of themselves, but they happened to be steps towards something positive.

If he wanted to point out the problems with American democracy, he should have used Jim Crow as an example of how fear, bigotry, and greed make democracy too slow for the betterment of society, and too fast to f*ck it up.  But he's a myopic ninny, so we can't really expect much.
 
2013-06-24 06:18:59 PM  
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the democracy for which it stands; a Nation divisible with liberty and justice for some."

There we go! It's correctly rewritten for 2013.

I took the 'under God' thing out, because (a. We threw Christianity out the window and embraced the Dollar, and (b. this is a secular country and should stay that way.

Also added 'democracy' because people don't know what the fark a republic is, so screw that term.
 
2013-06-24 06:19:13 PM  

Ishkur: Silly_Sot: Exactly. If "democracy" is "majority rule", and the majority "rules" that minority races should not be allowed to have certain jobs, shop in certain places, or live in certain neighborhoods, then such a democracy easily leads to injustice. However, we are not allowed to admit to that, since it would violate the dogma of "democracy is an unmixed blessing, majority rule is always right". There are times when the majority is wrong. This is why we need to enshrine fundamental individual rights in such a way that it is very inconvenient to legally mess with them--even if the majority doesn't want to respect the rights of the minority.
Unconstrained democracy is simply another way to say "mob rule".


What you are really talking about is Direct Democracy, which is not in practice in any nation in the world for exactly the reasons you describe.

What most European countries (and Canada and Australia) have is a Parliamentary Democracy: They vote for representatives, and the representatives come together to form parties and coalitions. But the mob does not -- and can not -- decide anything. It does not vote on specific bills or legislation and it does not elect the leader of the country (the majority party does that). Theoretically, the party in power ought to represent the mob's interests, but that's not guaranteed as the party in power rarely ever speaks for the mob or passes legislation in the mob's favor (at least, not all the time). It is an interesting buffer zone -- separation of the people from the powers -- that seems to work as a safeguard, however it can also produce tyranny of one-party rule (ie: Particracy, like in Mexico) if the party in power feels it is not beholden to anyone.

What America has is a Representative Republic which is closer to a Direct Democracy but not quite. The mob votes on specific legislation and the mob elects the leader of the country. By having a more direct link to the seats of power, the people have more control over the pr ...


I'm a big fan of so-called "fluid democracy" which wouldn't have been possible before the advent of high-speed, widespread telecommunications, but would be now.

Basically, it works like this:
Each Representative represents, say, 100,000 people (it would be more, but that's a nice round number for explanatory purposes).
Each person in that Representative's district gets one vote on everything that comes up in Congress.
Every vote in Congress is open for a full 24 hours or something. Every registered voter in the country gets to vote on everything.
When a Representative votes, anyone in his/her district who didn't cast a vote has their vote default to that of the Representative - in other words, you trust your Representative to vote the right way on most things for you, but you can always override his/her vote if you want.

There are practical issues like national secrets and such and the infrastructure needed to do it, but the principle itself could work.
 
2013-06-24 06:19:29 PM  

jigger: HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
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."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/

The state governments weren't so weak that they couldn't oppress blacks. They had plenty of strength to do that. Don't you think if those governments had been weakened then freedom could have blossomed for blacks? And isn't that basically what happened? The Feds were able to weaken the state governments' power allowing blacks to become more free.


They were certainly weak in the "we don't care if local sheriffs take part in lynch mob violence" sense.  And they had enough control in Congress to make sure that the Federal government was too weak to intervene in that area.
 
2013-06-24 06:19:46 PM  

thamike: in the sense that they were wrong in and of themselves, but they happened to be steps towards something positive.

  part of a longer timeline that resulted in something better.

Rephrased, I guess.  You get my drift.
 
2013-06-24 06:19:49 PM  

whidbey: So let's skip to the good part:

Who's voting for Paul in 2016? Or is that also democracy he doesn't support?


Nah, I'm going to keep voting for his old man. He gave me one silver dime for my vote.
 
2013-06-24 06:21:57 PM  

netgamer7k: (a. We threw Christianity out the window and embraced the Dollar,


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

We threw Christianity at the Dollar in order to embrace it shamelessly.
 
2013-06-24 06:22:55 PM  

thamike: thamike: in the sense that they were wrong in and of themselves, but they happened to be steps towards something positive.  part of a longer timeline that resulted in something better.

Rephrased, I guess.  You get my drift.


Yeah, I was just about to post [quizzicaldog.jpg].
 
2013-06-24 06:25:02 PM  

HighOnCraic: thamike: thamike: in the sense that they were wrong in and of themselves, but they happened to be steps towards something positive.  part of a longer timeline that resulted in something better.

Rephrased, I guess.  You get my drift.

Yeah, I was just about to post [quizzicaldog.jpg].


Yeah I noticed the step towards part makes it sound like I think it was a step in the right direction as opposed to an absurd stalling of the inevitable.
 
2013-06-24 06:27:13 PM  
 
2013-06-24 06:28:39 PM  

Marshal805: Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.


Does that make Booker T. Washington the libtardtartian?
 
2013-06-24 06:29:08 PM  
30 years ago, Republicans wanted to tear down the Berlin Wall and bring freedom and democracy to Eastern Europe.

Today, they want to build a wall along the Rio Grande and take freedom and democracy away from Detroit.
 
2013-06-24 06:30:22 PM  
I can honestly say this is the most intelligent, nuanced thing ever to come out if his mouth.
 
2013-06-24 06:33:04 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: Marshal805: Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.

Does that make Booker T. Washington the libtardtartian?


No, but trying to pass off BTW as some sort of token black libertarian to suit your agenda is rather obvious, however.
 
2013-06-24 06:39:35 PM  

whidbey: GreatGlavinsGhost: Marshal805: Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.

Does that make Booker T. Washington the libtardtartian?

No, but trying to pass off BTW as some sort of token black libertarian to suit your agenda is rather obvious, however.


Okay, how about if I say it the other way; libtardtarians have embraced his philosophy (as described in the link)?
 
2013-06-24 06:41:17 PM  

whidbey: GreatGlavinsGhost: Marshal805: Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.

Does that make Booker T. Washington the libtardtartian?

No, but trying to pass off BTW as some sort of token black libertarian to suit your agenda is rather obvious, however.


Oh, and from the link:

Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission; but adjustment at such a peculiar time as to make his programme unique. This is an age of unusual economic development, and Mr. Washington's programme naturally takes an economic cast, becoming a gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life. Moreover, this is an age when the more advanced races are coming in closer contact with the less developed races, and the race-feeling is therefore intensified; and Mr. Washington's programme practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races. Again, in our own land, the reaction from the sentiment of war time has given impetus to race-prejudice against Negroes, and Mr. Washington withdraws many of the high demands of Negroes as men and American citizens. In other periods of intensified prejudice all the Negro's tendency to self-assertion has been called forth; at this period a policy of submission is advocated. In the history of nearly all other races and peoples the doctrine preached at such crises has been that manly self-respect is worth more than lands and houses, and that a people who voluntarily surrender such respect, or cease striving for it, are not worth civilizing.

In answer to this, it has been claimed that the Negro can survive only through submission. Mr. Washington distinctly asks that black people give up, at least for the present, three things, -

First, political power,

Second, insistence on civil rights,

Third, higher education of Negro youth,

- and concentrate all their energies on industrial education, the accumulation of wealth, and the conciliation of the South. This policy has been courageously and insistently advocated for over fifteen years, and has been triumphant for perhaps ten years. As a result of this tender of the palm-branch, what has been the return? In these years there have occurred:

1. The disfranchisement of the Negro.

2. The legal creation of a distinct status of civil inferiority for the Negro.

3. The steady withdrawal of aid from institutions for the higher training of the Negro.

These movements are not, to be sure, direct results of Mr. Washington's teachings; but his propaganda has, without a shadow of doubt, helped their speedier accomplishment. The question then comes: Is it possible, and probable, that nine millions of men can make effective progress in economic lines if they are deprived of political rights, made a servile caste, and allowed only the most meagre chance for developing their exceptional men? If history and reason give any distinct answer to these questions, it is an emphatic No. And Mr. Washington thus faces the triple paradox of his career:

1. He is striving nobly to make Negro artisans business men and property-owners; but it is utterly impossible, under modern competitive methods, for workingmen and property-owners to defend their rights and exist without the right of suffrage .

2. He insists on thrift and self-respect, but at the same time counsels a silent submission to civic inferiority such as is bound to sap the manhood of any race in the long run.

3. He advocates common-school and industrial training, and depreciates institutions of higher learning; but neither the Negro common-schools, nor Tuskegee itself, could remain open a day were it not for teachers trained in Negro colleges, or trained by their graduates.
 
2013-06-24 06:41:58 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Basically, it works like this:
Each Representative represents, say, 100,000 people (it would be more, but that's a nice round number for explanatory purposes).
Each person in that Representative's district gets one vote on everything that comes up in Congress.
Every vote in Congress is open for a full 24 hours or something. Every registered voter in the country gets to vote on everything.
When a Representative votes, anyone in his/her district who didn't cast a vote has their vote default to that of the Representative - in other words, you trust your Representative to vote the right way on most things for you, but you can always override his/her vote if you want.
There are practical issues like national secrets and such and the infrastructure needed to do it, but the principle itself could work.


A great idea, but it runs the risk of misuse and fraud.

Do we really want to trust our most important democratic decisions to the Weedlord Bonerhitlers of the nation?
 
2013-06-24 06:43:08 PM  
Thanks to the War on Drugs, blacks in many urban areas are very well armed today.

And that's why there's no safer or less racially charged place to be than Detroit, New Orleans, or Baltimore.
 
2013-06-24 06:43:49 PM  

Ishkur: Lord Dimwit: Basically, it works like this:
Each Representative represents, say, 100,000 people (it would be more, but that's a nice round number for explanatory purposes).
Each person in that Representative's district gets one vote on everything that comes up in Congress.
Every vote in Congress is open for a full 24 hours or something. Every registered voter in the country gets to vote on everything.
When a Representative votes, anyone in his/her district who didn't cast a vote has their vote default to that of the Representative - in other words, you trust your Representative to vote the right way on most things for you, but you can always override his/her vote if you want.
There are practical issues like national secrets and such and the infrastructure needed to do it, but the principle itself could work.

A great idea, but it runs the risk of misuse and fraud.

Do we really want to trust our most important democratic decisions to the Weedlord Bonerhitlers of the nation?


There is a group of people who doing everything they can to make Idiocracy happen sooner. Kinda like those apocalyptic morans.
 
2013-06-24 06:45:25 PM  
Heh...

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.

It is not light that we need, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake.


- Frederick Douglass

... and he was right.
 
2013-06-24 06:55:22 PM  
Not surprising that a libertarian is not a fan of democracy.

I use the sane test for Democracy that I do for and political movement: Are there any modern, fairly large size  Democratic countries that I wouldn't mind living in?
Answer: Yes, there are in fact many Democratic countries I think I would have a good life in.

Now as the same question to libertarians like Rand Paul: Are there any modern, large countries you wouldn't mind living in that are not Democracies?


Answer: Modern, large non-democracies are Hell-holes.Democracy is not perfect, but it beats the alternatives.
 
2013-06-24 07:26:14 PM  

o5iiawah: Corvus: So then why are libertarians then only use this argument for Same Sex marriage and are pretty quite about it for none-same sex marriage.

I will tell you why, because it's a shame argument only made to justify a Libertarians who have intolerant  views.

Not sure if I that jumbled mishmosh of words qualifies as English, but I'll take a stab...

You think libertarians only take that stance on Gay marriage and dont care about hetero marriage?   You've obviously never heard of the flat/fair tax movement which many libertarians support.  The entire idea of libertarianism is an ideology of "Leave me the fark alone and I'll leave you the fark alone" so I'm not sure where you find some deep rooted intolerance there.


Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it......
 
2013-06-24 07:30:29 PM  

Flappyhead: o5iiawah: Corvus: So then why are libertarians then only use this argument for Same Sex marriage and are pretty quite about it for none-same sex marriage.

I will tell you why, because it's a shame argument only made to justify a Libertarians who have intolerant  views.

Not sure if I that jumbled mishmosh of words qualifies as English, but I'll take a stab...

You think libertarians only take that stance on Gay marriage and dont care about hetero marriage?   You've obviously never heard of the flat/fair tax movement which many libertarians support.  The entire idea of libertarianism is an ideology of "Leave me the fark alone and I'll leave you the fark alone" so I'm not sure where you find some deep rooted intolerance there.

Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it......


Heh. I have a very simple modification that would make the flat tax perfectly fair:

The whole argument for flat tax/fair tax is that people pay 15% of their income, or whatever, right off the top.

Fine.

Here's how it works: 15% off the top of their gross income, no deductions. But that's *all* income, including capital gains, interest, etc.

And, here's the important part: corporations are people too. They pay 15% of their gross income - not profit - off the top. Fair's fair, I didn't get to deduct my living expenses and car note from the amount I owed on taxes, you don't get to either.
 
2013-06-24 07:35:53 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Flappyhead: o5iiawah: Corvus: So then why are libertarians then only use this argument for Same Sex marriage and are pretty quite about it for none-same sex marriage.

I will tell you why, because it's a shame argument only made to justify a Libertarians who have intolerant  views.

Not sure if I that jumbled mishmosh of words qualifies as English, but I'll take a stab...

You think libertarians only take that stance on Gay marriage and dont care about hetero marriage?   You've obviously never heard of the flat/fair tax movement which many libertarians support.  The entire idea of libertarianism is an ideology of "Leave me the fark alone and I'll leave you the fark alone" so I'm not sure where you find some deep rooted intolerance there.

Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it......

Heh. I have a very simple modification that would make the flat tax perfectly fair:

The whole argument for flat tax/fair tax is that people pay 15% of their income, or whatever, right off the top.

Fine.

Here's how it works: 15% off the top of their gross income, no deductions. But that's *all* income, including capital gains, interest, etc.

And, here's the important part: corporations are people too. They pay 15% of their gross income - not profit - off the top. Fair's fair, I didn't get to deduct my living expenses and car note from the amount I owed on taxes, you don't get to either.


I'm fairly certain we'd still come up short.
 
2013-06-24 07:46:48 PM  

SnakeLee: Aarontology: I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.

RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights...for example, I can't have a cigar bar any more, and you say, "well, that has nothing to do with race" - the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie Nazis come in here and tell me. [...] The point is that its not all about that. It's not all about race relations, it's about controlling property, ultimately.

As far as I can tell, the Jim Crow laws were only about Seperate But Equal.  So yes, he is blatantly contradicting himself here


I believe he is arguing that Federalism moves us more from a Republic to a Democracy.  Tyranny of the majority is the fear of a pure democracy and that erodes individual rights in favor of the majority.
 
2013-06-24 07:51:07 PM  

dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


Christ, you're an idiot.
 
2013-06-24 07:56:09 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Thanks to the War on Drugs, blacks in many urban areas are very well armed today.

And that's why there's no safer or less racially charged place to be than Detroit, New Orleans, or Baltimore.


I know you're saying that sarcastically, but I feel more safe all around Baltimore than I ever felt living in New York.
 
2013-06-24 07:56:56 PM  

keylock71: Heh...

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.

It is not light that we need, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake.

- Frederick Douglass

... and he was right.


I'm sure there's a song or quote out there about the stupidity of breaking up the plowshares and converting them to guns or swords but I'm too lazy to look it up.

That being said, it would be ingenuous to believe that Douglass felt that being in a constant state of revolution was a bad thing.

We need people who can act- not just "blow smoke" more comes to mind when I read this though as opposed to a call to revolution.
 
2013-06-24 08:06:36 PM  

tbeatty: I believe he is arguing that Federalism moves us more from a Republic to a Democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the fear of a pure democracy and that erodes individual rights in favor of the majority.


That would be my assessment as well.
 
2013-06-24 08:12:27 PM  

slayer199: tbeatty: I believe he is arguing that Federalism moves us more from a Republic to a Democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the fear of a pure democracy and that erodes individual rights in favor of the majority.

That would be my assessment as well.


well it's pretty simple then.Paul just explains that he didn't mean he wasn't a fan of Democracy, he instead meant something else.  Simple right?

/don't hold your breath.
 
2013-06-24 08:16:34 PM  

skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.

would you? No? QED then.

I wouldn't WANT to; but if it was work in an unsafe mine or let your kids starve....?

hey, slow your roll - I was just pointing out the obvious. Who would want to work in an unsafe mine? ;)


It's not as obvious as you might think. My first body recovery when I was in Search & Rescue was of some dead dolt who thought it would be fun to explore an unsafe mine.
 
2013-06-24 08:21:04 PM  

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.

would you? No? QED then.

I wouldn't WANT to; but if it was work in an unsafe mine or let your kids starve....?

hey, slow your roll - I was just pointing out the obvious. Who would want to work in an unsafe mine? ;)

It's not as obvious as you might think. My first body recovery when I was in Search & Rescue was of some dead dolt who thought it would be fun to explore an unsafe mine.


that aint work. point stands. I just now got Bonnie's response and it was delicious. "Can nary"... gold
 
2013-06-24 08:29:33 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Flappyhead: o5iiawah: Corvus: So then why are libertarians then only use this argument for Same Sex marriage and are pretty quite about it for none-same sex marriage.

I will tell you why, because it's a shame argument only made to justify a Libertarians who have intolerant  views.

Not sure if I that jumbled mishmosh of words qualifies as English, but I'll take a stab...

You think libertarians only take that stance on Gay marriage and dont care about hetero marriage?   You've obviously never heard of the flat/fair tax movement which many libertarians support.  The entire idea of libertarianism is an ideology of "Leave me the fark alone and I'll leave you the fark alone" so I'm not sure where you find some deep rooted intolerance there.

Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it......

Heh. I have a very simple modification that would make the flat tax perfectly fair:

The whole argument for flat tax/fair tax is that people pay 15% of their income, or whatever, right off the top.

Fine.

Here's how it works: 15% off the top of their gross income, no deductions. But that's *all* income, including capital gains, interest, etc.

And, here's the important part: corporations are people too. They pay 15% of their gross income - not profit - off the top. Fair's fair, I didn't get to deduct my living expenses and car note from the amount I owed on taxes, you don't get to either.


Flat tax is unfair and here's the science as it were.  15% of a million dollars does not have as much pain as 15% of 20k.  Why? because that tank of gas is the same price for rich or poor.  I'd notice if I lost a 20% of my paycheck each week to keep my car on the road- probably wouldn't notice the expense if it were 5% or less.   If I'm barely keeping my head above water, paying an additional 15% would probably kill me.  If all I drank was water from a bottle, the 15% would probably be close to what I was already paying and go unnoticed.

You want equal- everyone gets a credit card with their income history that adjusts the price they pay for each purchase made accordingly.  At minimum, one will be able to buy "at cost".  As for the rich?  I'm looking forward to the rise of those micro breweries that result as they say "no more" to a twenty five dollar six pack of Pabst...

You still insist on flat tax?  Keep all food (excluding junk food) and- below a set income-- utilities, and shelter tax free.  Tax any motorized vehicle exceeding the number of licensed drivers per household heavily (an extra vehicle that is seldom used for work purposes is a luxury).  Tax larger vehicles a higher road tax excluding vehicles used for the transport of goods and multiple passengers.  Sorry Joe contractor- carrying around a 2x4 in your F250 won't qualify you for a tax break.

There are many ways of extracting taxes from the wealthy- just be prepared for a proportional bite out of your own wallet as well.
 
2013-06-24 08:44:29 PM  

Aldon: slayer199: tbeatty: I believe he is arguing that Federalism moves us more from a Republic to a Democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the fear of a pure democracy and that erodes individual rights in favor of the majority.

That would be my assessment as well.

well it's pretty simple then.Paul just explains that he didn't mean he wasn't a fan of Democracy, he instead meant something else.  Simple right?

/don't hold your breath.


Well except that it took the Fed to finally remove Jim Crow.
 
2013-06-24 08:49:33 PM  

MJMaloney187: That article was painful to read.

Rand Paul is the best politician to come along in my generation. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but he's a critical thinker and, I believe, an honest and moral man. We have three co-equal branches of government so Rand couldn't go running roughshod over existing bureaucracies.

He's brave for having said that to an all black audience. That's probably why most people cringe when he opens his pie hole - they cringe because they're scared on him.


Snert, let me laugh even harder.
 
2013-06-24 08:55:11 PM  
Mississippi population:
white 59%
black 37%
Mississippi congressional representation:
five white dudes and Bennie Thompson

Alabama population:
white 72%
black 26%
Alabama congressional representation:
8 honkies and Terri Sewell

Georgia population:
white 60%
black 30%
Georga congressional representation:
12 white, 4 black

Arkansas population:
white 77%
black 15%
Arkansas congressional representation:
100% white

Tell me again about this "democracy"


HighOnCraic
/How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

Ancient Athens was a democracy because some people could vote. As was the Holy Roman Empire. And modern Israel including the occupied territories.


Ishkur
You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated. They couldn't act, they couldn't organize, they couldn't revolt and they couldn't obtain power because they lacked the accessibility to achieve those aims.

That's bullshiat. There were many black armed self-defense groups.


o5iiawah
Which is why we have (or ought to have, or used to have) a republic. Where the whims of any one group or majority couldn't simply vote away the rights or property of another group.

Until they do.


HighOnCraic
/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.

Congress has guns (via the police and military). It seems to me that most "non-violence" advocates really just demand that someone else do the violence for them.
 
2013-06-24 08:59:47 PM  
o5iiawah

Tell me again how if price goes up number of units sold doesn't go down. That shiat was hilarious.
 
2013-06-24 09:00:34 PM  

skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.

would you? No? QED then.

I wouldn't WANT to; but if it was work in an unsafe mine or let your kids starve....?

hey, slow your roll - I was just pointing out the obvious. Who would want to work in an unsafe mine? ;)

It's not as obvious as you might think. My first body recovery when I was in Search & Rescue was of some dead dolt who thought it would be fun to explore an unsafe mine.

that aint work. point stands. I just now got Bonnie's response and it was delicious. "Can nary"... gold


No no, if there are fools who might like exploring unsafe mines, there are bound to be fools who would like working in one.

Anyway, there are no canaries in gold mines.
 
2013-06-24 09:00:58 PM  

RanDomino: Mississippi population:
white 59%
black 37%
Mississippi congressional representation:
five white dudes and Bennie Thompson

Alabama population:
white 72%
black 26%
Alabama congressional representation:
8 honkies and Terri Sewell

Georgia population:
white 60%
black 30%
Georga congressional representation:
12 white, 4 black

Arkansas population:
white 77%
black 15%
Arkansas congressional representation:
100% white

Tell me again about this "democracy"


HighOnCraic
/How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

Ancient Athens was a democracy because some people could vote. As was the Holy Roman Empire. And modern Israel including the occupied territories.


Ishkur
You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated. They couldn't act, they couldn't organize, they couldn't revolt and they couldn't obtain power because they lacked the accessibility to achieve those aims.

That's bullshiat. There were many black armed self-defense groups.


o5iiawah
Which is why we have (or ought to have, or used to have) a republic. Where the whims of any one group or majority couldn't simply vote away the rights or property of another group.

Until they do.


HighOnCraic
/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.

Congress has guns (via the police and military). It seems to me that most "non-violence" advocates really just demand that someone else do the violence for them.


the kind where representatives aren't just assigned based on racial proportions, you farking race hustling jerk
 
2013-06-24 09:01:53 PM  

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.

would you? No? QED then.

I wouldn't WANT to; but if it was work in an unsafe mine or let your kids starve....?

hey, slow your roll - I was just pointing out the obvious. Who would want to work in an unsafe mine? ;)

It's not as obvious as you might think. My first body recovery when I was in Search & Rescue was of some dead dolt who thought it would be fun to explore an unsafe mine.

that aint work. point stands. I just now got Bonnie's response and it was delicious. "Can nary"... gold

No no, if there are fools who might like exploring unsafe mines, there are bound to be fools who would like working in one.

Anyway, there are no canaries in gold mines.


there are canaries in witness protection, however
 
2013-06-24 09:05:55 PM  
skullkrusher
the kind where representatives aren't just assigned based on racial proportions, you farking race hustling jerk

Ooh, "assigned", yes. Because we wouldn't expect that a random sampling of the population would produce proportionate demographics.
 
2013-06-24 09:13:50 PM  

RanDomino: HighOnCraic
/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.

Congress has guns (via the police and military). It seems to me that most "non-violence" advocates really just demand that someone else do the violence for them.


Maybe the non-violent types are smart enough to know that going toe to toe with the US military would be a disaster for them.
 
2013-06-24 09:16:56 PM  

RanDomino: Mississippi population:

HighOnCraic
/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.

Congress has guns (via the police and military). It seems to me that most "non-violence" advocates really just demand that someone else do the violence for them.


How was passing the Civil Rights Act an act of violence?
 
2013-06-24 09:19:19 PM  

RanDomino: skullkrusher
the kind where representatives aren't just assigned based on racial proportions, you farking race hustling jerk

Ooh, "assigned", yes. Because we wouldn't expect that a random sampling of the population would produce proportionate demographics.


only if we assume the "random sampling" of the population faps to race as much as you do and cannot consider voting for someone of another race. Do you think the country is over 50% black when looking at the results of the 2012 Presidential election?
 
2013-06-24 09:20:53 PM  

RanDomino: That's bullshiat. There were many black armed self-defense groups.


And how many of them overturned Jim Crow through the use of their armaments?
 
2013-06-24 09:24:49 PM  

RanDomino: Tell me again how if price goes up number of units sold doesn't go down. That shiat was hilarious.


Do you have a quote or something on that?  You were trying to say that price elasticity has something to do with businesses pricing according to taxation.  For the last time - a business will roll the cost of a tax into the price of the product if they feel the market will bear the increase. If the market wont bear the increase, the company will eat the tax and will have to either deal with less profit (and less expansion, R&D, hiring, etc) reduced costs, reduced employee hours or layoffs.


Lord Dimwit: And, here's the important part: corporations are people too. They pay 15% of their gross income - not profit - off the top. Fair's fair, I didn't get to deduct my living expenses and car note from the amount I owed on taxes, you don't get to either.


Thats fine.  We may find that as a society, we only have to pay 5% or 10% of our income in taxes once those evil 1% you've been wanting to stick it to pay theirs. I'll gladly do my part to help society so long as the common worker and the banker do the same.  Madison's "General Welfare" is that the government provided benefits for all and was paid for or contributed by all.

.
 
2013-06-24 09:26:07 PM  

RanDomino: HighOnCraic
/How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

Ancient Athens was a democracy because some people could vote. As was the Holy Roman Empire. And modern Israel including the occupied territories.


How is choosing a really bad example of democracy (the South, which has gone from electing dozens of Democrats to Congress unopposed--prior to the 60s--to electing Republicans, to a lesser degree, unopposed) an intelligent way to criticize democracy?

That's like saying, "Star Trek sucks!" and only using episodes of "Voyager" as evidence.
 
2013-06-24 09:31:54 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: Oh, and from the link:


Dude, I read the link. I liked it.

I'll be goddamned if I understand the point you were making. Why did you even feel the need to bring it up?
 
2013-06-24 09:33:17 PM  

DamnYankees: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

This is not what he said. He didn't say "Democracy has vulnerabilities" or "democracy has weaknesses". That would be ok, because while it recognizes the issues in there, it still shows some awareness that every governmental system has some form of abuse possible, but democrac is a pretty good way to handle it.

But he didn't say that. He said he doesn't believe in democracy. That's because he's a Randian (pun not intended). He seems to fundamentally believe in the truth that there is a class of people, the Maker class, which is actually better, and better suited to govern. It's like an inverse Marxism.


Exactly.  The South's main tactics for maintaining segregation were attempts to thwart democracy through massive resistance against Federal interference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interposition#School_desegregation
 
2013-06-24 09:34:36 PM  

Aldon: well it's pretty simple then.Paul just explains that he didn't mean he wasn't a fan of Democracy, he instead meant something else. Simple right?

/don't hold your breath.


No, he didn't mean anything else.  Paul leans libertarian (though he's still a Republican at his core), knowing that may shed some insight into to those of you that don't understand libertarian concepts.  Central to that is that rights of an individual > the power of the State.  The State exists to protect and defend those rights, it does NOT exist to usurp individual liberty.  The Constitution also states this rather implicitly in that the People have (natural) rights and grant the government power.  Not the other way around.  For this reason, the U.S. is NOT a democracy, it's a constitutionally-limited republic.

I'm also not a fan of pure democracy (aka direct democracy) because as John Adams and Alexis de Tocqueville warned, the power of the majority ends up taking precedence over the rights of the individual.  It's up to the citizenry to restrain government's natural inclination to obtain more power.  Seems rather prescient given the political environment today as both parties increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty.
 
2013-06-24 09:40:02 PM  

Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]


I used to think that. But then I realized:

Democracy isn't four wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's one wolf and four sheep. Only the wolf has convinced two of the sheep that if they don't vote for mutton, they'll lost the opportunity to become wolves themselves.
 
2013-06-24 09:40:37 PM  

vygramul: Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]

I used to think that. But then I realized:

Democracy isn't four wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's one wolf and four sheep. Only the wolf has convinced two of the sheep that if they don't vote for mutton, they'll lose the opportunity to become wolves themselves.


FTFM
 
2013-06-24 09:41:22 PM  

slayer199: knowing that may shed some insight into to those of you that don't understand libertarian concepts.


Actually, I've been waiting for some (non-troll) libertarian to "shed light" on the rather fatal criticisms leveled toward your ideology, namely:

1 Libertarianism is naive. It is based on the honor system, which in the business/political world, isn't.
2. Libertarians want to eliminate needed protections on the environment, and deregulate industry to allow them to practice whatever amoral policies they want. See: law based on the honor system
3. Without a strong central government, racism would thrive and without an enforceable rule of law corporatism would take over society.

Not that I expect you to address these issues. Just making you aware of them.
 
2013-06-24 09:42:14 PM  

Ishkur: RanDomino: That's bullshiat. There were many black armed self-defense groups.

And how many of them overturned Jim Crow through the use of their armaments?


Alas
 
2013-06-24 09:43:35 PM  

RanDomino: Mississippi population:
white 59%
black 37%
Mississippi congressional representation:
five white dudes and Bennie Thompson

Alabama population:
white 72%
black 26%
Alabama congressional representation:
8 honkies and Terri Sewell

Georgia population:
white 60%
black 30%
Georga congressional representation:
12 white, 4 black

Arkansas population:
white 77%
black 15%
Arkansas congressional representation:
100% white

Tell me again about this "democracy"


I wonder what Ron Paul's odds would be if Texas had proportional representation.
 
2013-06-24 09:49:17 PM  
HighOnCraic
How was passing the Civil Rights Act an act of violence?

Anything that has an implied "Or we'll shoot your ass" is an act of violence.


skullkrusher
only if we assume the "random sampling" of the population faps to race as much as you do and cannot consider voting for someone of another race. Do you think the country is over 50% black when looking at the results of the 2012 Presidential election?

So you're saying white people get elected disproportionately... because they're more qualified?


o5iiawah
a business will roll the cost of a tax into the price of the product if they feel the market will bear the increase.

Causing customers to look for alternatives, and costing the company money.

If the market wont bear the increase, the company will eat the tax and will have to either deal with less profit (and less expansion, R&D, hiring, etc) reduced costs, reduced employee hours or layoffs.

Which also costs the company money. So you agree your point was bullshiat. Excellent.


HighOnCraic
How is choosing a really bad example of democracy (the South, which has gone from electing dozens of Democrats to Congress unopposed--prior to the 60s--to electing Republicans, to a lesser degree, unopposed) an intelligent way to criticize democracy?

Right, so my attempt to reinforce your point by using sarcasm did not succeed.


slayer199
I'm also not a fan of pure democracy (aka direct democracy) because as John Adams and Alexis de Tocqueville warned, the power of the majority ends up taking precedence over the rights of the individual.

If there had been that kind of democracy in the US around the turn of the 19th century, the populace would have abolished the debts, which would have been bad only for the financial elite. The Republican system had no difficulty annihilating the rights of Indians and slaves, and, later, workers. Thank goodness that we protected the rights of the minority of the financial elite and industrialists, and all it cost was the rights of pretty much everyone else.
 
2013-06-24 09:54:19 PM  
Ishkur
And how many of them overturned Jim Crow through the use of their armaments?

You said "You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated." I'm not arguing if it was successful. Just pointing out that you're wrong, many were armed.
 
2013-06-24 09:54:47 PM  

RanDomino: How was passing the Civil Rights Act an act of violence?

Anything that has an implied "Or we'll shoot your ass" is an act of violence.


The Feds were fairly reasonable in all the integration stand-offs where troops were sent in.

The South, on the other hand. . . .  Google the word "Bombingham."
 
2013-06-24 09:59:54 PM  
HighOnCraic
The Feds were fairly reasonable in all the integration stand-offs where troops were sent in.

They would have used them if necessary to enforce the law. The plausible threat that they would use them was the only thing that compelled segregationists to stand down. That is violence. Not saying it's bad, of course, just saying "non-violence" is just a way for moralists to wash their hands.  (or fail! Usually they just fail.)
 
2013-06-24 10:02:17 PM  
Who let the farkin' Freepers in here?
 
2013-06-24 10:07:31 PM  

animal color: Who let the farkin' Freepers in here FREEPS OUT?


content.internetvideoarchive.com

DERP DERP HERP DERP
 
2013-06-24 10:13:33 PM  

RanDomino: So you're saying white people get elected disproportionately... because they're more qualified?


unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.
 
2013-06-24 11:08:24 PM  

dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


I have you farkied as "likes to threaten armed revolt," and you never disappoint.
 
2013-06-24 11:21:17 PM  

slayer199: Aldon: well it's pretty simple then.Paul just explains that he didn't mean he wasn't a fan of Democracy, he instead meant something else. Simple right?

/don't hold your breath.

No, he didn't mean anything else.  Paul leans libertarian (though he's still a Republican at his core), knowing that may shed some insight into to those of you that don't understand libertarian concepts.  Central to that is that rights of an individual > the power of the State.  The State exists to protect and defend those rights, it does NOT exist to usurp individual liberty.  The Constitution also states this rather implicitly in that the People have (natural) rights and grant the government power.  Not the other way around.  For this reason, the U.S. is NOT a democracy, it's a constitutionally-limited republic.

I'm also not a fan of pure democracy (aka direct democracy) because as John Adams and Alexis de Tocqueville warned, the power of the majority ends up taking precedence over the rights of the individual.  It's up to the citizenry to restrain government's natural inclination to obtain more power.  Seems rather prescient given the political environment today as both parties increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty.


So in your world, there is only one type of Democracy (the direct democracy type)?

What can I say? I disagree. There are different forms and variants, all Democracies.  Including Democratic constitutionally-limited republics.
 
2013-06-24 11:29:42 PM  

skullkrusher: RanDomino: So you're saying white people get elected disproportionately... because they're more qualified?

unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.


Oo, this is how you troll! Subtle, accurate, and calculated to enrage; yet the discerning Farker can see exactly what you really mean on a second look. Let's see how many people take that second look.

There aren't canaries in the witness protection program; those are pigeons. The kind that perch on low backless chairs.
 
2013-06-24 11:30:58 PM  

Ishkur: dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.

You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated. They couldn't act, they couldn't organize, they couldn't revolt and they couldn't obtain power because they lacked the accessibility to achieve those aims.

For its not guns that make a people free, but education. Guns mean absolutely jack squat in terms of freedom. What use is freedom if you have not the knowledge or the understanding to use it properly (and you're too ignorant to know when it's being taken away)?

Only one thing can prevent tyranny: Education.

A highly informed and educated citizenry always demands more out of its government and is the best safeguard against tyranny. All dictatorships, once they obtain power, immediately seize all communications and education channels. If you can control what the people read or hear, you can control what they say or think. Keep the populace distant, ignorant and separated, and you never have to fear counter-revolution.

This is how societies in the past maintained slave populations that often numbered more than citizens.

So forget guns. Be more afraid of anyone taking away your access to high education. That's what totalitarianisms do. Whosoever tries to restrict your access to knowledge and information wants to control you.


They don't have to take away education.  All they have to do is corrupt it. Leave the parts in that they like and change the rest.  Like Intelligent design.
 
2013-06-24 11:33:37 PM  

ZombieApocalypseKitten: They don't have to take away education.  All they have to do is corrupt it. Leave the parts in that they like and change the rest.  Like Intelligent design.


Yeah but that would still definitely count as "taking away your access to higher education."
 
2013-06-24 11:40:03 PM  

whidbey: 2. Libertarians want to eliminate needed protections on the environment,


Right - because politicians have never destroyed the environment before.  Go ask any native Floridian what they think of the Army Corps of engineers and their management of Florida's Ecosystem and natural waterways.

The tragedy of commons and inevitable rape of resources only comes with public management of environmental assets.  Once you divvy up land or beast into private shares, each actor has an incentive to find sustainable balance between production and consumption of resources.

RanDomino: Causing customers to look for alternatives, and costing the company money.


A company has no money that a customer hasn't first given to it in exchange for a product or service.  Are you really this stupid?

whidbey: 1 Libertarianism is naive. It is based on the honor system, which in the business/political world, isn't.


Oh look. you again.  Making statement about stuff you know nothing of.  There's no honor system in libertarianism.  Each man will generally leave his fellow man alone. Acknowledging that this isn't always going to be the case, man formed government as a way to protect property, natural rights and to enforce the terms of contracts and exchanges.

In fact, the very foundation of libertarianism is that men simply cannot be trusted, thus we need laws to protect the stuff we own.  No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

whidbey: and without an enforceable rule of law corporatism would take over society.


What can a corporation do to you besides offer you a product you are not forced to buy or a job you're not forced to take?  You want a massive central government to fight corporatism and in the end, you get more corporatism.  After all, why invest millions in R&D for your product when you can buy a few congressmen?  Why create products that the market wants to buy when you can sell them to the customer that can earn its income via the IRS?  Those of you who think the corporations and banks screwed people over look no further than the politicians that let them run wild, bailed them out and give them tax breaks to continue doing it.
 
2013-06-24 11:48:35 PM  

HighOnCraic: RanDomino: Mississippi population:

HighOnCraic
/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.

Congress has guns (via the police and military). It seems to me that most "non-violence" advocates really just demand that someone else do the violence for them.

How was passing the Civil Rights Act an act of violence?


I'll play devil's advocate here, though no doubt I'll get biatched at for "doing it wrong," but whatever.

Passing the CRA* meant the executive would ENFORCE the CRA, meaning violence if the law was not obeyed.  The problem is the difference between implicit violence and explicit violence.  Or Roosevelt's "big Stick" policy if you prefer.  And the truth is there is some argument for it, but it carries too many unfortunate implications for most righties to use it.

Labor unions, organizations and strikes, the working class getting educated enough to stand up and demand the aristocrats offer a fair deal was put down for a LONG time.  A lot of undeclared wars were fought when laborers would strike and Pinkertons would start shooting.  That all became a LOT harder after WWII, when America's fighting forces came back home and said (implicitly) "we are armed, organized, and blooded, you give us a bad deal and we'll give you a cloud of bullets."  They didn't NEED to prove it with actual violence to get the point across.

And that's the point, would a rebel insurgency of militia-types be more than a speed bump to a New American Dictatorship with support of the US military?  fark no, but it would BE that speed bump, and it's a farking hill to climb for Officer Corruption and all the murderous jackasses in blue.  Knowledge of violence that CAN be affected is the big stick behind the soft words of diplomacy, and even Gene Roddenberry's impossible dreamworld of the Pacifistic Utopia of Starfleet had big-ass guns for when speeches and peaceful diplomacy met an intractable asshole in space.

Why are the Irish white people instead of "dirty irish bastards" treated as bad as the negro?  Because they organized, they joined the police force, and they got into a position where you couldn't oppress them without facing threat of BEING oppressed.  You may note we don't have loud and defined moments when the Irish stopped being a mud-race, it just sorta happened.

Would arming up the southern blacks during Jim Crow have worked?  Not alone, but the Black Panthers were a lot bigger than history likes to pretend these days, and you can bet those motherfarkers were organized and armed.  Would MLK's message of peace and love and equality be as well-received without the alternative, angry black men fighting an insurgency, quietly seething just outside the spotlight?

What-ifs may be impossible to answer, but sometimes they're still important to ask.


*This acronym gets more use than it probably should
 
2013-06-24 11:56:13 PM  
Holy shiat, Rand Paul says that he doesn't believe in mob-rule levels of democracy and everyone loses their minds.

You people do realize that this is the same view that lets people reject bullshiat like Prop 58, right?

/ in b4 who are "you people"?
 
2013-06-25 12:13:35 AM  

TheBigJerk: Why are the Irish white people instead of "dirty irish bastards" treated as bad as the negro? Because they organized, they joined the police force, and they got into a position where you couldn't oppress them without facing threat of BEING oppressed. You may note we don't have loud and defined moments when the Irish stopped being a mud-race, it just sorta happened.


There's another reason the Irish, Italians, Poles and other "mud-people" who started off being pretty well oppressed when they landed here, and the blacks didn't, and it has to do with ease of assimilation. No matter how much "Americans" hated the micks, wops, pollacks and assorted other races when they got off the boat, once they found a way to fit in, they mostly LOOKED like everyone else. And no matter how much blacks otherwise fit in with the neighbors, they mostly didn't. As unpalatable as that might be, at the very base of racism is look-ism: Who looks different from "us." And Europeans mostly look the same, or at least tolerably so. And the ethnic minorities that look more like white Europeans are tolerated more easily in American society (Hispanics, Asians) than blacks are, everything else being equal.

(It's not unique to white Americans, btw; lookism is the same in Asia or the Pacific Islands or Africa--I just know about America, since I live here)

Fear of violence is important, as you say; but you're not giving enough weight to the degree that people will push back against a perceived outsider. There was less resistance than you might think to the Irish or Italians, no matter how much threat the Irish cops or Italian mob might have presented.
 
2013-06-25 12:21:36 AM  
GO fark YOURSELF, KENTUCKY.


You incredible ignoramuses.
 
2013-06-25 12:51:03 AM  

whidbey: GreatGlavinsGhost: Oh, and from the link:

Dude, I read the link. I liked it.

I'll be goddamned if I understand the point you were making. Why did you even feel the need to bring it up?


I thought that Washington was supporting the idea of economic freedom, but no civil rights.

/Been reading a Du Bois reader.
 
2013-06-25 12:58:55 AM  

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: RanDomino: So you're saying white people get elected disproportionately... because they're more qualified?

unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.

Oo, this is how you troll! Subtle, accurate, and calculated to enrage; yet the discerning Farker can see exactly what you really mean on a second look. Let's see how many people take that second look.

There aren't canaries in the witness protection program; those are pigeons. The kind that perch on low backless chairs.


That was particularly well crafted, if I do say so myself.
 
2013-06-25 01:11:25 AM  

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


Jim Crow was created when the vast majority of the population couldn't vote and individual rights were most certainly not applied equally.  That was the whole problem.
 
2013-06-25 01:16:14 AM  

factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.


Paul is a corporatist.  He's never been familiar with reality.
 
2013-06-25 01:49:20 AM  

o5iiawah: For the last time - a business will roll the cost of a tax into the price of the product if they feel the market will bear the increase.


That's not how businesses price their goods. Have you ever owned a business?

The price is set first, determined by manufacturing, shipping, marketing, distribution costs and consumer demand, with added profit. If the company beancounters have determined that $X is the price point by which they can move full inventory and stay solvent, then it stays at $X. The tax is set on top of that ($X + 7%). If taxes are raised, changed or removed, it doesn't change the price point. And your insistence that they do and yet you are unable to provide a single example in half a dozen threads over the past 2 years over this issue is what is so ludicrously wrong with your argument.

Once again: Companies calculate price points irrespective of what the actual tax is. Because they can't control the tax and they don't get to keep it -- it means nothing to them. They are only concerned with what they can keep, and they structure their prices very specifically so they can meet expenses and earn profit off every unit sold. That is how capitalism works.
 
2013-06-25 01:49:38 AM  

Corvus: jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.


How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land ? This idea is strange to us.

If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water how can you buy them?
 
2013-06-25 01:52:41 AM  

Gyrfalcon: (It's not unique to white Americans, btw; lookism is the same in Asia or the Pacific Islands or Africa--I just know about America, since I live here)


I had dual citizenship in Japan--since my mother was a citizen. I didn't keep it up, because no matter what, I would be a mixed blood in a nation that has a lot of racism. Coming out, I got a lot of my Dad's looks, and I would just be another gaijin amongst folks. My Nihongo is poor, at best, and despite being born in Okinawa, I would be just another foreigner in a land that puts foreigners into some odd categories--and few flattering. In honesty, looking far more like my Irish-German father, I would have had an easier time of it, than say my sister, who is Irish-German and Korean--Dad had a thing for smart native girls for awhile--and certainly better than if I were Korean-Japanese or Vietnamese-Japanese, because as much as Americans and Europeans get a load of odd looks and some interesting stereotypes, other Asians in Japan get just full on racist sh*t that is maybe shocking for the folks who don't realize how much my mother's homeland is homogeneous.

Even IF my Nihongo was perfect. Even if I kept my dual citizenship, I would have always been an outsider. America has its issues, and racism is certainly far from dead, but we do better than some in quashing that. We do worse than some to be sure, as well, but with assimilation comes realization that we're all in it together. Be we native born, be we immigrants, white, black, brown, red, yellow, and a lot of odd mixes and dabs of color in between. Irish, Scots, Africans of many nations and origins, Mexicans, Brazilians, French, Japanese, Chinese, there is a long line back for a good number of folks. Even those pesky Russian immigrants have made homes here, and made it their own. We pretty much all, with few exceptions of those natives we sort of pushed aside, came here from away. We're a nation of immigrants, and it's good to remember that. Some volunteered. Some were volunteered to be dumped upon our shores, to work off debts, for simple slavery, for more complicated slavery when a good many Chinese showed up, and a less than legal slavery when it comes to some folks from Eastern Europe recently. We are a nation of folks from away. Which is why we sort of cling to those tales of our nations of origin. Irish, French, English, Scots, Africans lost a lot of family history thanks to the conditions of their passage and treatment here, and some recent additions to the melting pot have still heavy ties to their old country, even if that passage here was generations ago.

Which is why, when folks invoke nativism here, I sort of cock my head a bit. Be they Texans or Mainers, because we're, most of us, from away. Even if you have smidge of native blood, we still have connections to other lands. Maybe not close, but even the folks whose families were here during the Revolution, were mostly from away. Doesn't keep us from being some racist and nationalist bastiches, but it's odd that a nation of immigrants sometimes has problems accepting new waves of folks might want to come here...
 
2013-06-25 01:53:42 AM  

RanDomino: You said "You know why they weren't armed? ...because they were illiterate and uneducated." I'm not arguing if it was successful. Just pointing out that you're wrong, many were armed.


My original assertion is that education is a better path to liberty than firearms, and your exception only bolsters my claim.

So thank you for proving me right.
 
2013-06-25 02:06:01 AM  
skullkrusher
unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.

I'm just going to let this one speak for itself.


o5iiawah
The tragedy of commons and inevitable rape of resources only comes with public management of environmental assets. Once you divvy up land or beast into private shares, each actor has an incentive to find sustainable balance between production and consumption of resources.

As someone else said a few weeks ago, 'Come to upstate New York where the farmers have sold every tree they can on their property to buy meth.'

A company has no money that a customer hasn't first given to it in exchange for a product or service. Are you really this stupid?

"Causing the company to make less money". Is that better, since you are apparently an early 1990s text-based adventure game parser?

What can a corporation do to you besides offer you a product you are not forced to buy or a job you're not forced to take?

Beside hire thugs to smash the competition and intimidate workers? Which would, of course, never happen. Because reasons.


Ishkur
My original assertion is that education is a better path to liberty than firearms, and your exception only bolsters my claim.

As TheBigJerk said, nonviolence was not tested in a vacuum.
 
2013-06-25 02:26:40 AM  

RanDomino: As TheBigJerk said, nonviolence was not tested in a vacuum.


but who's fault was that, really?
 
2013-06-25 02:29:11 AM  
To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of Capitalism.  It got us $16,000,000,000,000 in debt.
 
2013-06-25 03:29:39 AM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: 2. Libertarians want to eliminate needed protections on the environment,

Right - because politicians have never destroyed the environment before.  Go ask any native Floridian what they think of the Army Corps of engineers and their management of Florida's Ecosystem and natural waterways.


LOL never mind answering the criticism, LOOK AT WHAT "YOUR" PEOPLE DO.

Weak, dude.

The tragedy of commons and inevitable rape of resources only comes with public management of environmental assets.  Once you divvy up land or beast into private shares, each actor has an incentive to find sustainable balance between production and consumption of resources.

Another non-answer. I made the statement that without regulations, huge polluting corporations will do whatever the hell they want, and you answer with this? Not surprising. Not a real answer, though.

I really don't think you're capable of giving one.

whidbey: 1 Libertarianism is naive. It is based on the honor system, which in the business/political world, isn't.

Oh look. you again.  Making statement about stuff you know nothing of.  There's no honor system in libertarianism.  Each man will generally leave his fellow man alone. Acknowledging that this isn't always going to be the case, man formed government as a way to protect property, natural rights and to enforce the terms of contracts and exchanges.


Actually as far as environmental protection and human rights go, it really would depend on a honor system to enforce it, as polluters and bigots also would believe their property rights are being trampled on.

You have the expectation that people are just going to straighten up, fly right, and do the right thing. Well, even history from the past 50 years says otherwise, and it took government to intervene.

See this is the disconnect here: you envision few, if any government interventions, whereas any Googling of history indicates that we need government to intervene on the people's behalf. Over and over. What guarantee do you have that your "limited" government is going to be anywhere near as effective?

In fact, the very foundation of libertarianism is that men simply cannot be trusted, thus we need laws to protect the stuff we own.

As few laws as possible. And any laws which place human rights above "the stuff you own" are to be avoided.

 No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

Ah, personal attacks once again. That means I don't have to answer any of your other points as you have forfeited this discussion. Better luck next time.
 
2013-06-25 03:33:00 AM  

o5iiawah:  No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

.


Amazing. How many times do I have to report this guy? I behaved civilly in this exchange.
 
2013-06-25 04:11:10 AM  

RanDomino: skullkrusher
unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.

I'm just going to let this one speak for itself.


Hook, line, sinker, and reel! And after I pointed it out!
 
2013-06-25 04:15:44 AM  
i.qkme.me

"The Federalist Papers" Motherfarker, did you READ it???
 
2013-06-25 06:36:18 AM  

Ishkur: RanDomino: That's bullshiat. There were many black armed self-defense groups.

And how many of them overturned Jim Crow through the use of their armaments?


Right here. Everybody gather round. I found exactly what to dickslap the gun nuts with, right here.
 
2013-06-25 06:39:40 AM  

Ishkur: o5iiawah: For the last time - a business will roll the cost of a tax into the price of the product if they feel the market will bear the increase.

That's not how businesses price their goods. Have you ever owned a business?


I don't think he's ever even worked in one.
 
2013-06-25 06:44:21 AM  

Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.


Yeah, I mean Queen Elizabeth II is a monarch, and has no power to change any laws, or do anything political at all except to repeat verbatim what the PM tells her to, so he has way more power than a monarch.
 
2013-06-25 06:56:41 AM  

whidbey: o5iiawah:  No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

.

Amazing. How many times do I have to report this guy? I behaved civilly in this exchange.


He probably finds being called "naive" FAR more insulting, since part of the libertarian ego foundation is being smarter than all the "sheeple."
 
2013-06-25 06:57:18 AM  

clowncar on fire: We need people who can act- not just "blow smoke" more comes to mind when I read this though as opposed to a call to revolution.


Same here... Though, a call to revolution, doesn't always mean violence. Unfortunately those who hold power over others are often unlikely to give up that power without a struggle, and it's often a violent struggle. Personally, the Douglass quote seems to foretell the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century, where more often than not, the violence was perpetrated by those who opposed change and wanted to keep their fellow Americans in a permanent state of second class citizenship because of their skin color.
 
2013-06-25 07:00:05 AM  

TheBigJerk: whidbey: o5iiawah:  No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either.

.

Amazing. How many times do I have to report this guy? I behaved civilly in this exchange.

He probably finds being called "naive" FAR more insulting, since part of the libertarian ego foundation is being smarter than all the "sheeple."


Which is hilarious as Libertarianism is nothing by naive idealism... Like I said earlier, they remind me of Communists in the early 20th century. Without all the followers and ability to act, of course. : )
 
2013-06-25 07:56:13 AM  
RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights...for example, I can't have a cigar bar any more, and you say, "well, that has nothing to do with race" - the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie Nazis come in here and tell me. [...] The point is that its not all about that. It's not all about race relations, it's about controlling property, ultimately.

 Jesus Christ, Rand, yer tap dancing all over the farkin' place.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this but what I think he's saying is the Civil Rights Act is in some way related to both no-smoking acts and the Americans With Disabilities Act. No-smoking acts are enacted on a mostly local level, and I generally agree it's unfortunate when they don't include an exemption for something like cigar bars or hookah bars where the owners are catering to a smoking clientele. The Americans With Disabilities Act is a federal act but in no way related to the Civil Rights Act necessarily, and about the only time where I have any sort of difference with it is if an owner buys an old property and then gets sued for not having retrofitting to include wheelchair accessibility (retrofitting should be tied to the property sale for commercial buildings.) Neither of these are tied to the Civil Rights Act, which is the law that keeps Ma and Pa from seating blah people at the diner because it offends their sensibilities.

Stick with being a (fake) eye doctor, Rand.
 
2013-06-25 08:00:14 AM  
Neither of these are tied to the Civil Rights Act, which is the law that keeps Ma and Pa from  refusing to seat blah people at the diner because it offends their sensibilities.

missed my coffee this morning, heh.
 
2013-06-25 08:20:50 AM  

Ishkur: If taxes are raised, changed or removed, it doesn't change the price point


I've provided dozens of answers that you dont want to hear, listen to or accept.  The sticker on the shelf may not change but this isn't the actual price that the consumer pays. If a county passes a referendum to change their sales tax from 5 to 7%, the MSRP of the product wont change but that isn't the price of the product.  The price is what the cashier asks you to pay at the register which has all the new taxes included.  Price point on the shelf is nothing more than a psychological trick to make us think we're paying $99.99 for something and when we get to the register, we figure taxes are a part of it and just fork over $106.50 or whatever state/local tax rate is levied

And gasoline taxes...ever notice the price on the sign is higher in counties that have added gasoline taxes for roads?  How can that be?  The shell Station 5 miles up the road prices gas at $3.49 and this one has it for $3.59

whidbey: LOL never mind answering the criticism, LOOK AT WHAT "YOUR" PEOPLE DO.

Weak, dude.


Weak?  You said we need a strong central government to manage environmental law and I provide an example of where government screwed it up.  Do we need to go tit for tat?

Actually as far as environmental protection and human rights go, it really would depend on a honor system to enforce it, as polluters and bigots also would believe their property rights are being trampled on.

This is why I call you a moron - because you will proudly make statement like this about how right you think you are.  A polluter so to speak has rights to his own private property but those rights stop once his pollution affects the property or health of another.  The exercising of your rights stops once you trample on the rights of someone else.  Kind of sad that this is 2nd-3rd grade level civics we're discussing here.  As far as bigots go, the free market provided for blacks long before government ever did.

You have the expectation that people are just going to straighten up, fly right, and do the right thing. Well, even history from the past 50 years says otherwise, and it took government to intervene.

No, I have the expectation that people are going to do the right thing, but that we ordain a government to settle controversies and protect people who are having their rights or property violated by those who choose not to.  This is maybe the 3rd or 4th time this thread I've said something to this effect and that you dont understand it is pretty pathetic.

RanDomino: Beside hire thugs to smash the competition and intimidate workers? Which would, of course, never happen. Because reasons.


Any smashing of competition would be a breach of that law and that is why we have police/courts to settle it.  Its no surprise though that once government gets into bed with business that smashings then become legal.  See, government has an exclusive monopoly of force.
 
2013-06-25 09:11:02 AM  
You know, it's fine and dandy of him to say something like that.

But if he's not a fan of it, what's his solution?  Benevolent dictatorship?  Rule of the minority?

There are things we can do (which I don't think he's proposing) to improve our representative democracy.  One of them is to have instant runoff elections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting">http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

It does away with (or at least limits the power of) the two-party system.  When you vote you rank the candidates in the order you like.  If no one candidate has a majority of the votes, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated then those votes are distributed based on the voters' second choices.  This repeats until you have a victor. 

This way you can vote for the candidate you want and not be throwing your vote away.  Maybe you wanted Kucinich but you voted for Obama because Kucinich didn't have a shot in hell.  This way you could put Kucinich as your first choice and Obama as your second choice and if there's no clear winner and Kucinich is in last place, your vote goes to Obama.
 
2013-06-25 10:11:32 AM  
o5iiawah (farkied: Right wing wharrgarbler with a wharrgarbl name): The tragedy of commons and inevitable rape of resources only comes with public management of environmental assets. Once you divvy up land or beast into private shares, each actor has an incentive to find sustainable balance between production and consumption of resources.

Welcome to Aynrandistan.  There will be a $3 per minute charge to breathe our fresh, clean, smog-free Bank of America Air®.

/Go on, pollute the air all you want.  Just don't let it drift off the premises of your factory.
 
2013-06-25 10:32:59 AM  

Gyrfalcon: RanDomino: skullkrusher
unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.

I'm just going to let this one speak for itself.

Hook, line, sinker, and reel! And after I pointed it out!


"Subtle, accurate, and calculated to enrage; yet the discerning Farker can see exactly what you really mean on a second look "

I think I know why he was upset by it
 
2013-06-25 10:33:47 AM  

RanDomino: skullkrusher
unless you're gonna make an argument that all people of all races and demographics have equal access to education and opportunity, yeah, I'd say that on average white people are more qualified.

I'm just going to let this one speak for itself.


o5iiawah
The tragedy of commons and inevitable rape of resources only comes with public management of environmental assets. Once you divvy up land or beast into private shares, each actor has an incentive to find sustainable balance between production and consumption of resources.

As someone else said a few weeks ago, 'Come to upstate New York where the farmers have sold every tree they can on their property to buy meth.'

A company has no money that a customer hasn't first given to it in exchange for a product or service. Are you really this stupid?

"Causing the company to make less money". Is that better, since you are apparently an early 1990s text-based adventure game parser?

What can a corporation do to you besides offer you a product you are not forced to buy or a job you're not forced to take?

Beside hire thugs to smash the competition and intimidate workers? Which would, of course, never happen. Because reasons.


Ishkur
My original assertion is that education is a better path to liberty than firearms, and your exception only bolsters my claim.

As TheBigJerk said, nonviolence was not tested in a vacuum.


you're not even sure why you're mad anymore. You're just mad that some capitalist pig dog scum said something.
 
2013-06-25 10:39:35 AM  

o5iiawah: I've provided dozens of answers that you dont want to hear, listen to or accept. The sticker on the shelf may not change but this isn't the actual price that the consumer pays. If a county passes a referendum to change their sales tax from 5 to 7%, the MSRP of the product wont change but that isn't the price of the product. The price is what the cashier asks you to pay at the register which has all the new taxes included. Price point on the shelf is nothing more than a psychological trick to make us think we're paying $99.99 for something and when we get to the register, we figure taxes are a part of it and just fork over $106.50 or whatever state/local tax rate is levied


This is all true, but its not your god damn argument. Why is this so hard for you?

Your argument was "Often times, if a tax burden is lifted, a company will cut prices"

I asked you to give me one example and you can't in thirteen months of arguing about it. And pursuant with our original discussion, I'm talking about a company literally dropping the MSRP directly because a tax burden is lifted, I guess out of the goodness of their hearts or something. And I was talking about anything from corporate taxes to property taxes, manufacturing taxes, shipping/trucking taxes, gas taxes, etc. whatever enables the company to move product easier and cheaper. Not farking sales taxes.

For some blockheaded reason you keep returning to the sales tax losing gambit which is not what your argument should be because it's wrong for one thing, and we were talking about corporate taxes in the original thread before you made that stupid quote. And you've been stuck on sales taxes and other tangential nonsense ever since.

Seriously, just get your head out of the stupid sales taxes sub-argument because its not germaine to what you were trying to prove.

I just don't know why you are incapable of understanding this.
 
2013-06-25 11:44:45 AM  
Gyrfalcon
Hook, line, sinker, and reel! And after I pointed it out!

Like I said, you can think whatever you like about that one.


thamike
Right here. Everybody gather round. I found exactly what to dickslap the gun nuts with, right here.

Go try nonviolence in a vacuum with absolutely no one doing the opposite strategy, and tell me how it works out. Spoiler: You will be ignored and/or beaten and arrested just for lulz. Violence alone sometimes doesn't work, sometimes does. Same for nonviolence.


o5iiawah
Any smashing of competition would be a breach of that law and that is why we have police/courts to settle it. Its no surprise though that once government gets into bed with business that smashings then become legal. See, government has an exclusive monopoly of force.

Okay, so if there's no government at all, then capitalists hire thugs to take control; but if there is a government, then capitalists take control of the government?
 
2013-06-25 12:08:06 PM  

RanDomino: Gyrfalcon
Hook, line, sinker, and reel! And after I pointed it out!

Like I said, you can think whatever you like about that one.


why don't you tell us what you thought about that one?
 
2013-06-25 01:37:52 PM  

o5iiawah: This is why I call you a moron -


Actually, personal attacks mean you don't have an argument. and you forfeit whatever point you were making.
 
2013-06-25 01:46:42 PM  

RanDomino: Right, so my attempt to reinforce your point by using sarcasm did not succeed.


My meter may need adjusting, but I was still referring to RAND PAUL's critique, not your sarcastic comment.
 
2013-06-25 03:35:07 PM  

Cythraul: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

My parents always used to overrule me in their own form of 'tyranny of the majority' too. All I wanted was to play Nintendo just a little while longer, but nooo! I had to go to bed!

Stupid parents.


here! here!
all I wanted was a Pepsi  just one Pepsi and she wouldn't give it to me
 
2013-06-25 05:52:11 PM  

Fart_Machine: Aldon: slayer199: tbeatty: I believe he is arguing that Federalism moves us more from a Republic to a Democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the fear of a pure democracy and that erodes individual rights in favor of the majority.

That would be my assessment as well.

well it's pretty simple then.Paul just explains that he didn't mean he wasn't a fan of Democracy, he instead meant something else.  Simple right?

/don't hold your breath.

Well except that it took the Fed to finally remove Jim Crow.


I think that was his point.  The Fed did end it.  The unintended consequences being that the Fed now has the ability to act in ways that would be unprecedented prior to that.  The fed did intend to end Jim Crow laws and it is a morally correct decision.,  The result though is that other rights that were previously retained by the states (or rights that should have been returned 50 years after implementation) are never returned.  SCOTUS took a step today by ruling that data from 50 years ago is not particularly relevant to today but the power is still retained by the Fed.
 
2013-06-25 06:23:13 PM  

RanDomino: thamike
Right here. Everybody gather round. I found exactly what to dickslap the gun nuts with, right here.

Go try nonviolence in a vacuum with absolutely no one doing the opposite strategy, and tell me how it works out. Spoiler: You will be ignored and/or beaten and arrested just for lulz. Violence alone sometimes doesn't work, sometimes does. Same for nonviolence.


I was agreeing with you, idiot.
 
2013-06-25 06:23:56 PM  
...unless of course you weren't being sarcastic about the "armaments" remark.  Poe's law and all that.
 
2013-06-25 07:08:44 PM  
thamike
I was agreeing with you, idiot.

Someone needs to take this thread behind the woodshed.
 
Displayed 255 of 255 comments

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