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.

(WBUR Boston)   RAND PAUL: "The Economist is attacking me because they hate Libertarians"   (onpoint.wbur.org) divider line 155
    More: Unlikely, Ron Paul, Republican establishment, David Boaz, Mitch McConnell, swing voters, fiscally conservative, House Republicans, Newt Gingrich  
•       •       •

1386 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Aug 2013 at 1:02 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-06 04:03:54 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Rand Paul will be the next president - mark my words.


I will mark them with a nice trolltastic grey, tyvm.
 
2013-08-06 04:08:58 PM

thurstonxhowell: Liable under the terms of the contract with enforcement provided by whatever entity both parties agreed upon. A lack of a state does not mean a lack of all contract enforcement. Whatever we think of as the job of the state would be performed by private entities engaging in free trade.


Effectively, of course, it does mean just that. Any contract enforcement contract is just as dismissable as the contract itself. Unless you've got the bigger army of mercenaries to back it up.

thurstonxhowell: Anarcho-capitalism is utter nonsense, BTW. Don't mistake my attempts at explaining it for advocacy.


So noted.  I was pretty sure you were just devil's advocating it.  But, I do have this conversation with an old college roommate and anti-state.com regular.  He pretty much reinvents government again after about 20 minutes every time we get into it, so that's nice.
 
2013-08-06 04:09:38 PM
Rand, you aren't a libertarian, please quit sullying the party.
 
2013-08-06 04:10:55 PM

d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.


Contradiction in terms.  You can't have private property on a corporate scale without a state apparatus to protect it.
 
2013-08-06 04:12:10 PM
Nice thread we got going here.
 
2013-08-06 04:13:54 PM

tirob: d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.

Contradiction in terms.  You can't have private property on a corporate scale without a state apparatus to protect it.


You can't have private property, period, without government - not unless you're big enough and mean enough to take and hold it by force yourself, that is.
 
2013-08-06 04:14:03 PM

palelizard: T

He reminds me of Andrew Ryan from Bioshock.  He's all about libertarian ideals and John Galt right up until they don't benefit him and/or they allow other people to do things he disapproves of.


All "Libertarians" are like that.  They have rights, the rest of us have obligations.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 04:14:23 PM

tirob: d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.

Contradiction in terms.  You can't have private property on a corporate scale without a state apparatus to protect it.


we already had this conversation.
 
2013-08-06 04:19:45 PM

d23: he's a corporate anarchist.

words have meanings, douche.


I'd say more pro-corporate fascist especially given his racist leanings.
 
2013-08-06 04:29:44 PM

tirob: All "Libertarians" are like that.  They have rights, the rest of us have obligations.


No... everyone has rights in theory. Life, liberty, property. But no one has the obligation to help you achieve those rights, even if (especially if) you can't achieve them on your own. It's the bastardization of social Darwinism on a grand scale. Moreover, it's social entropy. Society is built upon compromise, sacrifice and forgiveness: all the things libertarian philosophy rails against because they require imperative participation to work. The obsession over almighty contracts and civil courts is equally dubious and ignorant of history.

You have the right to continue to exist... and that's it. Whoop-de-doo.

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-06 04:40:02 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Aarontology: If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?

LOL How anyone thinks he's nothing more than a completely run of the mill Republican only with a gimmick and a bunch of stupid, shallow followers is beyond me.

I have no respect for libertarians/ism or the whole "no true Scotsman" game they like to play but even I have to admit he's just using the label and has no real interest in the poorly-defined principals of the "philosophy" outside of where they are not politically advantageous for him to use to advance his career.


He learned from the best.
 
2013-08-06 04:42:03 PM

BurrisYeltsin: Rand Paul will be the next president of the Confederate States of America - mark my words.

 
2013-08-06 05:01:47 PM

whidbey: BurrisYeltsin: Rand Paul will be the next president - mark my words.

He should be. The US needs to go back to its Southern Roots.


What?!?! What exactly do you mean by " Southern roots "? Well if you mean back to the time where the north gave the south a royal ass whuppin, im all for that. Lord knows the south is starting to ask for it.

There is no way in hell that Paul will become President as long as there is a huge block of non white voters. He is surrounded and supported by bigots and Paul has very questionable views on civil rights. The only way he could win is by the south trying as hard as it can to stop anyone whos not white and or rich to vote...oh wait.
 
2013-08-06 05:06:48 PM

HighOnCraic: Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.

[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.


Anybody have the one where Dallas is getting nuked and he's enjoying it?  Heh...

/God do the Southerners fear him...
 
2013-08-06 05:13:29 PM

Rwa2play: HighOnCraic: Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.

[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.

Anybody have the one where Dallas is getting nuked and he's enjoying it?  Heh...

/God do the Southerners fear him...


LMGTFY..

i258.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-06 05:22:35 PM

I Like Bread: tirob: All "Libertarians" are like that.  They have rights, the rest of us have obligations.

No... everyone has rights in theory. Life, liberty, property. But no one has the obligation to help you achieve those rights, even if (especially if) you can't achieve them on your own. It's the bastardization of social Darwinism on a grand scale. Moreover, it's social entropy. Society is built upon compromise, sacrifice and forgiveness: all the things libertarian Spencerian philosophy rails against because they require imperative participation to work. The obsession over almighty contracts and civil courts is equally dubious and ignorant of history.

You have the right to continue to exist... and that's it. Whoop-de-doo.


Fair enough; I would make one change as you see, as I still think of the word "libertarian" in its old Anarchist sense, where there is no state to protect private property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer
 
2013-08-06 05:26:24 PM

Maud Dib: Rwa2play: HighOnCraic: Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.

[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.

Anybody have the one where Dallas is getting nuked and he's enjoying it?  Heh...

/God do the Southerners fear him...

LMGTFY..

[i258.photobucket.com image 399x408]


Hah~! Seriously, it's like they see him as the second coming of Satan or something...
 
2013-08-06 05:26:57 PM

sheep snorter: A real Libertarian does not allow ownership of other people and their bodies.


I would listen to real Libertarians more often if you didn't all sound like schizophrenics.
 
2013-08-06 05:38:51 PM

I Like Bread: Crotchrocket Slim: I have no respect for libertarians/ism or the whole "no true Scotsman" game they like to play but even I have to admit he's just using the label and has no real interest in the poorly-defined principals of the "philosophy" outside of where they are not politically advantageous for him to use to advance his career.

Fact is, there are about a dozen flavors of libertarian thought based on fundamental differences.
Minarchy/Anarchy
Intellectual property
Natural Law/Utilitarianism

The fact that whatever type of libertarian you find yourself arguing with says you don't know what REEEEAAAL LIBERTARIANISM is, is because s/he doesn't know either. REAL "small-L" libertarians are against all power structures, INCLUDING CAPITALISM; they are now known as libertarian socialists. Today's "big-L" Libertarians are a splintered cult whose only unifying characteristic is being useful idiots for Goldline and Koch Industries.

[img.photobucket.com image 400x400]


Pretty much but even with that acknowledged he really does seem to be disingenuously using it as a marketing gimmick for his eventual Presidential run(s). It's been my experience that l/Libertarians think they are a lot smarter than they really are; Paul just figured out how to fleece those rubes.
 
2013-08-06 05:40:44 PM
"Libertarianism", because saying you are actually a "Confederate" sounds so bad.
 
2013-08-06 05:44:58 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Pretty much but even with that acknowledged he really does seem to be disingenuously using it as a marketing gimmick for his eventual Presidential run(s). It's been my experience that l/Libertarians think they are a lot smarter than they really are; Paul just figured out how to fleece those rubes.


Family tradition.

http://www.libertynetworkers.com/
 
2013-08-06 06:09:23 PM
The Economist takes libertarians just as seriously as everyone else.
 
2013-08-06 06:35:01 PM
That's like saying feminists are attacking Rush Limbaugh because he hates sausages.
 
2013-08-06 06:41:27 PM
Everything is fine for the right people.
 
2013-08-06 07:10:00 PM
Libertarianism: for conservatives who don't want people to know they're assholes.
And pot-heads.
 
2013-08-06 08:18:53 PM

Aarontology: If they hated libertarians, then why would they be attacking you, Senator Paul?


Done in one.

Just like his father, Rand is a Paleo-conservative, with a few bonus wacky ideas.
 
2013-08-06 08:36:12 PM

Maud Dib: Rwa2play: HighOnCraic: Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.

[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.

Anybody have the one where Dallas is getting nuked and he's enjoying it?  Heh...

/God do the Southerners fear him...

LMGTFY..

[i258.photobucket.com image 399x408]


You know what?  I'm gonna say it: that picture is incredibly insulting.  Not to Southerners, but to General Sherman's memory and everything he stood for.

He said "War Is Hell" because he understood just what war was, and he hated it.  He hated every minute of what he was doing, but he still did it because he knew it needed to be done.  He took no pleasure in the March to the Sea.  If he was around today, and discovered that humanity devised a weapon that could kill so many with such little effort, he would respect its ability to make the world see what he saw about the horrors of war, and appreciate its ability to make us actually hesitate to go to war.  But he would utterly loath the weapon itself and the humanity that had laid itself so low as to create such a weapon.  Him expressing joy in using it would be unthinkable.

/Southerner
 
2013-08-06 09:08:30 PM

NEDM: Maud Dib: Rwa2play: HighOnCraic: Gaseous Anomaly: People who attack because they hate Confederates, historically, tend to be less polite.

[generalsherman.jpg]

Unavailable for comment.

Anybody have the one where Dallas is getting nuked and he's enjoying it?  Heh...

/God do the Southerners fear him...

LMGTFY..

[i258.photobucket.com image 399x408]

You know what?  I'm gonna say it: that picture is incredibly insulting.  Not to Southerners, but to General Sherman's memory and everything he stood for.

He said "War Is Hell" because he understood just what war was, and he hated it.  He hated every minute of what he was doing, but he still did it because he knew it needed to be done.  He took no pleasure in the March to the Sea.  If he was around today, and discovered that humanity devised a weapon that could kill so many with such little effort, he would respect its ability to make the world see what he saw about the horrors of war, and appreciate its ability to make us actually hesitate to go to war.  But he would utterly loath the weapon itself and the humanity that had laid itself so low as to create such a weapon.  Him expressing joy in using it would be unthinkable.

/Southerner


Thanks.
               The artist is an idiot.
 
2013-08-06 09:37:17 PM

NEDM: You know what?  I'm gonna say it: that picture is incredibly insulting.  Not to Southerners, but to General Sherman's memory and everything he stood for.

He said "War Is Hell" because he understood just what war was, and he hated it.  He hated every minute of what he was doing, but he still did it because he knew it needed to be done.  He took no pleasure in the March to the Sea.  If he was around today, and discovered that humanity devised a weapon that could kill so many with such little effort, he would respect its ability to make the world see what he saw about the horrors of war, and appreciate its ability to make us actually hesitate to go to war.  But he would utterly loath the weapon itself and the humanity that had laid itself so low as to create such a weapon.  Him expressing joy in using it would be unthinkable.

/Southerner


Sadly, there are still people who argue that the bomb should've never been used against Japan in WWII.  I wonder if they would consider how more horrific it would've been had the Allies decided to invade Japan.
 
2013-08-06 09:43:16 PM

Rwa2play: NEDM: You know what?  I'm gonna say it: that picture is incredibly insulting.  Not to Southerners, but to General Sherman's memory and everything he stood for.

He said "War Is Hell" because he understood just what war was, and he hated it.  He hated every minute of what he was doing, but he still did it because he knew it needed to be done.  He took no pleasure in the March to the Sea.  If he was around today, and discovered that humanity devised a weapon that could kill so many with such little effort, he would respect its ability to make the world see what he saw about the horrors of war, and appreciate its ability to make us actually hesitate to go to war.  But he would utterly loath the weapon itself and the humanity that had laid itself so low as to create such a weapon.  Him expressing joy in using it would be unthinkable.

/Southerner

Sadly, there are still people who argue that the bomb should've never been used against Japan in WWII.  I wonder if they would consider how more horrific it would've been had the Allies decided to invade Japan.


There's a school of thought which holds that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with any attempt to make Japan capitulate - we killed more people when we firebombed Tokyo than we did in Hiroshima, and Japan was already making inquiries about terms of surrender. According to this theory, use of atomic weapons was mostly about swinging our big dicks in an effort to impress the Soviets.
 
2013-08-06 09:47:13 PM

BMulligan: Rwa2play: NEDM: You know what?  I'm gonna say it: that picture is incredibly insulting.  Not to Southerners, but to General Sherman's memory and everything he stood for.

He said "War Is Hell" because he understood just what war was, and he hated it.  He hated every minute of what he was doing, but he still did it because he knew it needed to be done.  He took no pleasure in the March to the Sea.  If he was around today, and discovered that humanity devised a weapon that could kill so many with such little effort, he would respect its ability to make the world see what he saw about the horrors of war, and appreciate its ability to make us actually hesitate to go to war.  But he would utterly loath the weapon itself and the humanity that had laid itself so low as to create such a weapon.  Him expressing joy in using it would be unthinkable.

/Southerner

Sadly, there are still people who argue that the bomb should've never been used against Japan in WWII.  I wonder if they would consider how more horrific it would've been had the Allies decided to invade Japan.

There's a school of thought which holds that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with any attempt to make Japan capitulate - we killed more people when we firebombed Tokyo than we did in Hiroshima, and Japan was already making inquiries about terms of surrender. According to this theory, use of atomic weapons was mostly about swinging our big dicks in an effort to impress the Soviets.


That's one school of thought.  AFA Japan was concerned, through the last years of the war there was an internal struggle by the military who wanted to continue the war at whatever cost to the country and those who wanted the war over before Japan was reduced to ashes.  Heck, even the Emperor's surrender announcement was almost sabotaged.
 
2013-08-06 10:20:26 PM
Libertarianism will never work on a large scale country. It only works with limited Government and limited like-minded population.

/Libertarian

"States" should be abolished. Only two levels are needed. Local (county/city) and Federal.
 
2013-08-06 10:28:48 PM

d23: jake_lex: Well, take RAND PAUL's much derided comment about how he wouldn't mind local police using a drone to blow away someone who just robbed a liquor store. Coming so close on the heels of his filibuster of the Obama administration using drones, people saw that as hypocrisy, but it's not. RAND PAUL is just against the federal government using drones. If a state or local government wants to use then to blow away jaywalkers, that's fine with him.

Or corporations.  He's fine with corporations doing whatever the fark they want with absolutely no law or regulation.

That's why I call his ilk corporate anarchists.


Every time Rand Paul talks, I have to play Bioshock Infinite.
 
2013-08-06 10:51:28 PM
Remembers when Libertarians were kinda on the left hippie side. Now it seems they are for the Republicans who are too far right for them and the Republicans who say they are Libertarian so they won't seem square.

//Used to agree with alot of what they said till someone in the party decided that Ayn Rand was the party spokesperson
 
2013-08-06 10:53:57 PM

Rwa2play: Sadly, there are still people who argue that the bomb should've never been used against Japan in WWII. I wonder if they would consider how more horrific it would've been had the Allies decided to invade Japan.


Sadly, there are people who believe that dropping a second bomb before the Japanese had a chance to respond to the first wasn't racist.
 
2013-08-06 10:54:12 PM
Lawnchair
That theory leaves out the reality that, even without formal state-level Jim Crow laws, someone trying to open an 'integrated lunch' in Alabama in 1952 would have found it burned to the ground. Immediately. And not prosecuted (likely because the DA, sheriff, and judge were all among the torch-bearers). They'd be lucky if it was just burned to the ground and they weren't tied up inside at the time.

In theory, there could have been a combination of self-defense militias with assistance from non-local allies, and boycotts of businesses owned by or supporting racists. Although IMO authoritarian behavior is usually driven by some other authoritarian force or institution; eliminate those and racism makes so little sense that it should disappear almost immediately.

Unless you've got the bigger army of mercenaries to back it up.

And as we all know from reading our Rothbard, there is no way this could possibly ever be abused.


I Like Bread
REAL "small-L" libertarians are against all power structures, INCLUDING CAPITALISM; they are now known as libertarian socialists.

saying "known as" is being pretty generous.

I miss the Caveman Libertarian thread.
 
2013-08-06 10:59:17 PM

Without Fail: Rwa2play: Sadly, there are still people who argue that the bomb should've never been used against Japan in WWII. I wonder if they would consider how more horrific it would've been had the Allies decided to invade Japan.

Sadly, there are people who believe that dropping a second bomb before the Japanese had a chance to respond to the first wasn't racist.


It was a lot of things, but "racist" probably wasn't one of them...
 
2013-08-06 11:10:58 PM

RanDomino: eliminate those and racism makes so little sense that it should disappear almost immediately.


There you go attributing sense to things.  You can't reconcile sense and racism.  And racism really does exist. In massive doses.  Which should be enough make you realize that sense isn't a variable in any part of the equation.  Which shoots holes in all sorts of optimized textbook theories.
 
2013-08-07 12:17:49 AM

RanDomino: Lawnchair
That theory leaves out the reality that, even without formal state-level Jim Crow laws, someone trying to open an 'integrated lunch' in Alabama in 1952 would have found it burned to the ground. Immediately. And not prosecuted (likely because the DA, sheriff, and judge were all among the torch-bearers). They'd be lucky if it was just burned to the ground and they weren't tied up inside at the time.

In theory, there could have been a combination of self-defense militias with assistance from non-local allies, and boycotts of businesses owned by or supporting racists. Although IMO authoritarian behavior is usually driven by some other authoritarian force or institution; eliminate those and racism makes so little sense that it should disappear almost immediately.


If you read some of the old propaganda from the 50s and 60s in the National Review and the White Citizens' Council publications, you'd see that it would've been impossible for Southerners to just voluntarily give up on segregation without being forced to by the Federal government (even Buckley eventually admitted that).  The main idea was that integration would inevitably lead to a Communist takeover of America (as well as black male/white female miscegenation), and segregation was supported by Christ Himself.  What good would boycotts have done when state laws made segregation mandatory, and it was even illegal (in Mississippi) to publish pro-integration material?

I know it runs against the whole "State guv good!  Fed guv bad!" narrative, but that's the way it was.  It took Federal power to overthrow the authoritarian rules of the state governments.
 
2013-08-07 12:21:02 AM

theorellior: All joking aside, has anyone here actually read The Economist? It's really not that right-wing, and when it is, it doesn't go for the frothing derp-fest you'd get from FOX or from The Sun. It's actually kinda snarky, in a British sort of way.


I love The Economist. That doesn't mean I agree with everything in there, but it's certainly a well-written mag. As a libtard, I've often stroked my chin and said, "Hmmm, that's actually a good point" while reading it.

In a world (or at least a nation) where finding ANYTHING even resembling conservatism that doesn't fly off the rails is remarkably difficult, it's a refreshing read. It has also led me to research things I otherwise would have remained ignorant of.
 
2013-08-07 12:42:45 AM
Rand Paul is full of farking shiat. I am so tired of him stating that he's a libertarian. I didn't even read the article, but I'm sure it's the same victimized bullshiat he's been spouting since before he entered office. He's done nothing good for my state, and his number 1 priority is posturing for a presidential bid that will ultimately fail in the primaries.

Seriously hanging my head in shame for all the idiots who voted him in, and even moreso for the lazy asses who didn't vote at all.
 
2013-08-07 12:48:09 AM

d23: ikanreed: Raharu: [img197.imageshack.us image 650x976]

Libertarianism: internally consistent, externally retarded.

The Rand Paul Libertarianism isn't consistent at all.  That's the problem.  Rand Paul Libertarianism is more like "corporate person good, real person bad."


Seems consistent to me. It is retarded and evil, but it is consistent.
 
2013-08-07 01:01:50 AM

LoneWolf343: d23: ikanreed: Raharu: [img197.imageshack.us image 650x976]

Libertarianism: internally consistent, externally retarded.

The Rand Paul Libertarianism isn't consistent at all.  That's the problem.  Rand Paul Libertarianism is more like "corporate person good, real person bad."

Seems consistent to me. It is retarded and evil, but it is consistent.


Demented and sad, but social.

/Well, not all that sociable. . .
 
2013-08-07 01:28:07 AM
Lawnchair
And racism really does exist.

In its modern sense, it was invented to keep Irish indentured servants, African slaves, indigenous people, and poor English yeomen and laborers from getting along, in order to make it easier to exploit them all. Racism establishes a hierarchy in which certain (invented) classes are given privileges over the others in order to make them loyal to the system as a whole. Often those privileges amount to "We'll fark you over less".
This simply parallels all other types of privilege. There could be a regime that makes left-handed people overlords over right-handed people and creates a sort of cult around it and it would practically be the same (years after political rights are given to right-handed people: "I don't hate right-handed people! One of my best friends is right-handed!").
Parochialism may exist as a universal independent. Racism, in itself, does not.


HighOnCraic
What good would boycotts have done when state laws made segregation mandatory

Politicians often are, or are friends with, wealthy businessmen.
themoreyouknow.jpg
 
2013-08-07 01:54:33 AM

RanDomino: Lawnchair
And racism really does exist.

In its modern sense, it was invented to keep Irish indentured servants, African slaves, indigenous people, and poor English yeomen and laborers from getting along, in order to make it easier to exploit them all. Racism establishes a hierarchy in which certain (invented) classes are given privileges over the others in order to make them loyal to the system as a whole. Often those privileges amount to "We'll fark you over less".
This simply parallels all other types of privilege. There could be a regime that makes left-handed people overlords over right-handed people and creates a sort of cult around it and it would practically be the same (years after political rights are given to right-handed people: "I don't hate right-handed people! One of my best friends is right-handed!").
Parochialism may exist as a universal independent. Racism, in itself, does not.


HighOnCraic
What good would boycotts have done when state laws made segregation mandatory

Politicians often are, or are friends with, wealthy businessmen.
themoreyouknow.jpg


But the wealthy businessmen in the South wanted to maintain segregation in order to keep the poor whites happy with their situation.  Besides, how would boycotts put pressure on businessmen to integrate when the laws prevented blacks from being served in their business?

And as I mentioned, they were afraid that integration would lead to a Communist takeover of America. I'll try to do some googling to provide you with a link to the documentation.
 
2013-08-07 02:01:07 AM
" 'Integration' and 'Communization' are, after all, pretty closely synonymous. In light of what is happening today, the first may be little more than a euphemism for the second. It does not take many steps to get from the 'integrating' of facilities to the 'communizing' of facilities, if the impulse is there."
 http://www.amren.com/news/2012/04/the-decline-of-national-review/
 
2013-08-07 03:42:35 AM

RanDomino: Lawnchair
And racism really does exist.

In its modern sense, it was invented to keep Irish indentured servants, African slaves, indigenous people, and poor English yeomen and laborers from getting along, in order to make it easier to exploit them all. Racism establishes a hierarchy in which certain (invented) classes are given privileges over the others in order to make them loyal to the system as a whole. Often those privileges amount to "We'll fark you over less".
This simply parallels all other types of privilege. There could be a regime that makes left-handed people overlords over right-handed people and creates a sort of cult around it and it would practically be the same (years after political rights are given to right-handed people: "I don't hate right-handed people! One of my best friends is right-handed!").
Parochialism may exist as a universal independent. Racism, in itself, does not.


HighOnCraic
What good would boycotts have done when state laws made segregation mandatory

Politicians often are, or are friends with, wealthy businessmen.
themoreyouknow.jpg


Not that I ever agree with you, but Nell Painter in her excellent book "The History of White People" makes this exact point, and traces racism in America to exactly the moment, just after the Revolution succeeded, when wealthy white landowners (with or without slaves) looked around this new land of ours and suddenly realized the poor free whites and poor free blacks had MUCH more in common with each other than they'd ever have with the wealthy white landlords--and an awful lot in common with all those enslaved blacks down on de plantation.

The white middle class was created specifically as a buffer between rich whites and the poors, by relaxing restrictions on who could own land--it was easier to restrict by skin color only than by the complex mishmash of race, heritage, parentage and birth order which had existed in Europe before that. (Alexandre Dumas pere, a "quadroon" as they say, was a landed gentleman in France) As laws against poor whites gradually fell off the books, it wasn't that poor whites got MORE rights necessarily--just that free blacks got many fewer by comparison.

It bought the rich white folks about another 50 years...
 
2013-08-07 08:46:36 AM
I think it's horrible that on the axis of Authoritarian -> Libertarian, the people representing the Libertarian side these days tend to be the ones who want the freedom to do farked up shiat to people, when it SHOULD be people who want liberty and don't have it.

I think everyone who isn't a white corporate executive who buys congressmen should live somewhere on the line closer to the libertarian end, especially gays, or anyone who doesn't feel their government should be involved in their diet, their sex lives, their churchgoing or lack thereof,  but instead we get these whackos who want freedom because in a dog-eat-dog world without restrictions, they feel like their lack of compassion will benefit them.

fark this country. It gives you the choice of one party that gives you corporate control and extra taxes on Funyuns, and the other that gives you corporate control and wants to dictate who you can fark.
 
2013-08-07 09:59:46 AM
HighOnCraic
But the wealthy businessmen in the South wanted to maintain segregation in order to keep the poor whites happy with their situation. Besides, how would boycotts put pressure on businessmen to integrate when the laws prevented blacks from being served in their business?

Without exports, their wealth would have started to dry up, and they may have gone squealing to their politician buddies to do whatever it took to fix things.
 
2013-08-07 10:27:54 AM

RanDomino: HighOnCraic
But the wealthy businessmen in the South wanted to maintain segregation in order to keep the poor whites happy with their situation. Besides, how would boycotts put pressure on businessmen to integrate when the laws prevented blacks from being served in their business?

Without exports, their wealth would have started to dry up, and they may have gone squealing to their politician buddies to do whatever it took to fix things.


But as I said, it was boycotts that changed that state segregation laws, because most businesses wouldn't serve blacks to begin with.  It worked with the buses, because blacks were allowed to ride them (with certain restrictions), so the bus companies were losing money. All the stores that refused to serve blacks in the first place wouldn't have been impacted by a boycott.

Why is it such a big deal to admit that in this particular case, Federal power was necessary?  Even William F. Buckley (the guy who wrote "Why the South Must Prevail"), admitted it.

"I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow," Mr. Buckley said in 2004. "I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/weekinreview/23tanenhaus.html?_r=0
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report