not just bars but restaurants too. i went out to eat w a friend and his gf who are jamaican at a place that was highly recommended by a local(we were on a business trip) ppl there were giving them looks, even the staff, i didn't notice right away but they did.it took forever to serve us and the food was crap. by the time we were done everyone else was sitting on the other side of the restaurant.but not everyone who's white knows its a racist place, im sure if they did they'd stop going.
today tons of privately owned places are very segregated and we all know this. think of all the different kinds or bars (those of u 21 and up). yuppie bars, gay bars, jock bars,bars in the hood, hipster bars, country hick bars,etc. and if you don't fit in everyone notices. they don't kick you out but you won't be back.
he is right but should've made the point that the government shouldn't be responsible for its people, in the sense that if there were places that were white only, then the people of that town have a PERSONAL responsibility to disavow, and hopefully boycott that place out of business, and not a legal one. the people of the town go in and support the racism are then easy to pick out as racist. nothing would be different from now accept the ignorance would be in plain view not hidden.
Mannnnn...I like Rand Paul, but this entire interview was one long political dodge. He needs to learn a little bit from his dad about giving straight answers.
Rachel racism is going to exist. Trying to hide it under laws like it's not there isn't very realistic, won't stop violence or change minds but allows precedence for other liberty infringements we may not like. ONLY the racist can cure himself.
He might not be racist, but his argument makes no sense. The market won't correct for racism b/c it didn't do that before 1964. The Civil Rights Act is not even about special treatment. Simply fair treatment.
If you don't like integration (or black people) that's your opinion, and this is America. But the idea of people choosing whether to serve me based on my skin color alone is disconcerting.
I cant believe that this stupid bitch had a 20 minute interview with a guy running for US senate and she asked the same question for the entire 20 minutes. What a disgrace
Take Rachel's bowling alley example - not allowing black kids. What if it was short haired liberal leaning brunetts - not allowed inside?
Rachel or a business associate could very well open a bowling alley which permitted everyone thereby squeezing the bigot out of the market. Why reward the alley that prevents freedom in the first place?
This is a market issue not a legislative one.
Government force is only a violation of our freedoms - even if we don't agree with the action of that freedom
@bigtex1453 That's a nice little fairy tale, but the reality is that your market solution didn't work. Pre-1964 bigots were not squeezed out of the market, if they were then the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.
What do you think the Black Codes and the Jim Crow laws were?
Precious government regulation forcing segregation. Thats right - look it up.
Even if a business owner wanted to serve blacks they couldn't - for fear of breaking the law - and law breaking happened all the time. You're suggesting an unjust legislation preventing private property owners from using their land as they see fit to repeal an unjust legislation segregating the people, as good. I see it as all bad
@bigtex1453 "Even if a business owner wanted to serve blacks they couldn't - for fear of breaking the law - and law breaking happened all the time." That's why some businesses wanted the federal legislation to force their hand, like playing good cop bad cop.
There's a brilliant online article that explains this better than I ever could, it's called "Cato Scholar Scolds Rand Paul, Gives OK to Soup Nazi"
I'll take real-world pragmatism over libertarian dogma any day of the week.
"I'll take real-world pragmatism over libertarian dogma any day of the week."
You mean the force of government and the loss of private property rights. That's exactly what I'm afraid of.
Oh - and as far as Nazi's are concerned, Hitler did not believe in property rights of any kind. So before you start tossing out slander - look at the policy that you're advocating and who agrees with you.
In the real world money & property are inalienable rights.
civil liberties, personal freedom, property rights, free speech, habeus corpus, right to a fair and speedy trial, right to bear arms, and the right to challenge and oppose a government that oversteps these - all of these rights are equally important. That's why we have the bill of rights.
All rights are =
I want freedom, independence, and equality for everyone - white black Hispanic middle eastern - everyone
You want government force and privilege for a select few
Again, seeing People in groups only creates division. And because not everyone sees minorities as equals - who are themselves a minority in society, you're advocating to punish all of the citizens of this country in an attempt to manufacture social justice.
The problem with these types of policies is the fact that there are always negative unintended consequences that outweigh any initial drive & benefit of the policy.
You are the discriminator because you see people in groups as a collective. And you want to give "more" rights to certain groups. I see everyone as an individual with equality under the law.
Additionally, are rights are inalienable in accordance to Natural Law. They can't be taken away. They are not granted by government. Therefore they have no authority to take them away or the authority to grant that which they do not have the power to give in the first place
@bigtex1453 "You want government force and privilege for a select few"
You mean like the "privilege" for minorities to be served in restaurants? Yes, I sure do, that's why I'm in favor of the Civil Rights Act. Guilty as charged.
"Additionally, are rights are inalienable in accordance to Natural Law."
Unfortunately not, otherwise our rights would be valid everywhere in the world. Try exercising those inalienable rights in North Korea and see how far it gets you!
The Civil Rights act took rights away. Property rights. All they had to do was repeal the Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes. They integrated in the north just fine. Restaurants or businesses that did not serve both blacks and whites - went out of business. The money is all green. Thats what matters.
As far as NK - so you're saying that because the government of NK violates the rights of the people in NK that they don't have rights? You're confused.
Also it's tough to have a debate about this subject in 500 characters - so if you really want to talk about it in detail please email me at achillesarmy{at}gmail{dot}com
Civil rights issues are constitutional not up to private businesses. Whether you are allowed to carry a gun is up to private businesses. What's so hard with the distinction?
Went to a night club with a friend in Queens NY where we were refused access by the bouncer ( a non- Korean) who informed us that the Korean ownership had specifically instructed him not to let in non Koreans. My friend and I are white by the way.
Should atheist organizations have to higher Christians? Christians be required to higher atheists? I think that is his point. Unfortunately not enough people get it.
Would have been better than his gun owner comment. However he was on the spot.
@zoulkyud No he wasn't the difference between the gun owner thing and the racist business owners is that one is a civil rights issue and one isn't. And why should Christian business owners need to ask you what version of Christian you are? It's not a civil rights issue if the question is relavent to the mission of the business. If you are a non profit activist you have every right to find people who agree with you. If you are obviously discriminating for no reason that is not good.
@zoulkyud What's really against freedom of speech is allowing people to squelch a minority opinion in the biggest way which is to not hire them or let them in your private club or businesses. If you want to squelch anothers opinion you take their job, and their money away. It doesn't matter how free you claim the business owners get in return, the real people needing protection don't have freedom to be honest or keep those views.
everyone has the right to be racist. the law just prevents them from ACTing racist. it has no effect on who they choose to be or what they choose to believe.
in fact, wat we've now done is to give equal patronage to businesses owned by racist owners and to businesses who sincerely want to benefit society. if we restore private property rights, businesses will have to make a decision on wat they really believe, and racism will be stamped out faster.
>>if we restore private property rights, businesses will have to make a decision on wat they really believe, and racism will be stamped out faster.
This is one of the stupidest statements I've read in a while. Several decades ago, when these laws did NOT exist, social segregation and inequality was at its height. Racism was NEVER poised to end on its own. If you were black, you were an outsider. What the hell do you think minority means? It means you have no power.
@kDest actually, i think slavery was when racial inequality was at its height. it was all going downhill from there. white racists had to have secret societies to do damage. read freakenomics. when their secrecy was lost, so was their power.
but more had to be done. the law had to come into force. everyone agrees to that. its just the last part of the legislature that sets a bad precedent. the rest by itself would be enough to ensure that everyone respected everyone's rights.
@kDest racism bred slavery. Abe Lincoln led from the front to try end it. as more people realized that all men are equal, the concept of slavery became abhorrent. then, when the time was right, mr king led from the front, to abolish institutionalized racism. even without the law, this movement itself saw the tide turning on racism. with the law, it was greatly suppressed.
private racism is a hurtful opinion. it isn't illegal to have a mean opinion. govmt protects dignity, not feelings.
>>private racism is a hurtful opinion. it isn't illegal to have a mean opinion. govmt protects dignity, not feelings.
Again, you talk from ignorance. Private racism means that businesses everywhere can choose to not serve your kind. There are always racial groups and cultures that have mass fear towards them. Private racism means that they will always be on the fringe of society, without basic service, because the MAJORITY fears them and wants nothing to do with them.
@kDest how can you say i talk from ignorance when you are the one who believes the majority of americans are racist??! after 1964 ppl woke up. u say that woke coz of the last part of the act, which was rubber stamped by white ppl. n i say the entire act was a symptom of the waking which happened because of the charisma of the black preacher.
i just saw your channel, n realized that reasoning with you is foolish, since you've dedicated an entire channel to calling libertarians fools, but hey...
Because you have no concept of how the world is or how it works. That is why you are ignorant. In the middle of a time when our President is widely believed to be a covert Muslim, and homosexuals are routinely denied equal marriage protections, you have the nerve to pretend that racism and bigotry do not exist.
>>after 1964 ppl woke up
And it is statements like this which put you at great odds with reality, and make you look a fool.
@kDest actually, i said racists were the minority. and they are.
how do you think the 1964 act was passed? coz a minority in congress passed it or a majority? and that was a symptom of intelligent ppl speaking up. remove your 'the world is racist' glasses n look at the facts.
>>i just saw your channel, n realized that reasoning with you is foolish, since you've dedicated an entire channel to calling libertarians fools
Libertarians are fools. You have a simplistic notion of reality, where everything is solved by property rights. Not enlightenment, not education, not a social backbone which protects the weak. No, property rights. That is all libertarianism is: property rights trump equality and societal health. Everything else is second to property.
@kDest actually, libertarianism is liberty trumps everything. hence the name. liberty is the right to own your life property, and to do what you deem best with it, while not infringing on other's ability to do the same. property rights aren't the solution, but they are a basic right. just like education. society doesn't need to be RUN by a few elite. SOCIETY - everyone's a part of it! so if everyone is weak, society will be weak. but a few strong can stand up to warmongers n oligarchs.
OK so RONY here is saying that. "YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE RACIST!" If you dumb this entire conversation down. that what it sums up to. The businesses have a right to be racist.
his view makes perfect sense. all intelligent people, including black people, should be able to support it without being ostracized from society for 'promoting racism'. there are other ways of promoting equality for all humans, without force of law or might. social issues should be dealt with socially (picketing, social awareness events) political issues by legislation, and economic issues by boycotting.etc...
Only if you are self-absorbed and cannot compromise for anything no matter the good that comes from it.
>>should be able to support it without being ostracized from society for 'promoting racism'
His rhetoric supports racism because it convinces people that the world would be a better place if we just gave racists unchecked power. This is clearly false, but if enough fools buy it, social disaster will follow in the form of segregation.
>>there are other ways of promoting equality for all humans, without force of law or might
You can say that now as you are comfortable and secure. When you are among the weak and vulnerable picketing businesses, being threatened with violence, and attacked, then one day you may understand why we need the power of government to give legal voice to the powerless.
@kDest unchecked compromise will lead to lawlessness. we have to consider the precedent it sets. racism did not die down because it was forced out. you cannot force love, only submission. it was right thinking and informed people that dealt it the death blow.
consider free speech: some speech may be hateful n hurtful. but when it's out in the open, it can be destroyed. the truth always wins in an open battlefield. unchecked power to the powerless allows them to fizzle out, instead of smoldering.
@kDest Gandhi: first they ignore you. then they laugh at you. then they fight you. then you win.
winning is not a case of minority or majority. its a case of truth. the truth wins ultimately. by locking away lies you preserve them.
Martin Luther King Jr's marches and speeches weren't successful because they brought about a change in the law (though, as Paul says, most of the bill was necessary) rather, it was successful coz it changed people's outlook. THAT'S how you solve a social problem.
That's not even close to being true. Have you never heard of organized religion?
>>THAT'S how you solve a social problem.
Without that law, segregation would have persisted until this day. We would probably see a movement of violent black nationalists supporting fringe secessionist movements and there would be attempts to introduce an amendment abolishing workplace discrimination, due to the federal precedent denying it.
>>unchecked compromise will lead to lawlessness. we have to consider the precedent it sets. racism did not die down because it was forced out.
Racism dies down because it was forced out, publicly ridiculed, and legally punished. Then there was enough space for a slow effort of making each generation less bigoted and more integrated. Look at what happened in a mere five decades, we went from segregation to a mulatto president. That is a HUGE change very quickly.
@kDest i didn't get your organized religion point.
i have to reiterate my point about truth, since you've either ignored it or didn't understand it. we WOULD'NT have racism persisting till this day because of the information boom. the world is smarter now. if you were to repeal the law and import white supremists, racism would not work, because people can recognize the fact that different races are good at different things, but are all worthy of equal respect.
@kDest and the fact that there are still racists in the country is proof of my words. when the catholic church held full sway, people were corrupt and very un-Christ-like. when people began to debate the validity of religion, people were forced to analyse their shallow beliefs. some gave it up and became atheists, and others went back to the truth they could glean, and became strong followers of Christ. by disallowing people to debate the issue you merely mask the symptoms. the disease remains.
My point about organized religion is that nothing else, not even government, has been more successful in killing truth. Case in point, thanks to Christianity and Islam we lost great libraries which held accounts of the culture and history of the ancient world, forever.
>>by disallowing people to debate
What does debating have to do with this, though? We're talking about letting business owners tell a black man "Get out of my store, spook." That's not healthy for society.
@kDest i think we better stick to one or two msgs at a time.
However, you grouped these two points well, because, as i mentioned before organized religion was unhealthy for not allowing intellectual debate, despite the fact that for a long time, it was people who had a great thirst for knowledge who sought a career in religion. with the reformation, intelligent people asked questions, which made it better, since intelligence has to be met with intelligence.
@kDest here, by racist, i mean the belief that certain races are inferior to others, genetically, and therefore socially and productively. it is the belief that those qualities that make human beings the dominant species on the planet (such as intelligence, appreciation for art, etc...) are present more in certain races than others.
intelligent people are generally informed enough to know that this simply isn't true. thus intelligent people aren't racist.
Blacks' rights were NOT protected by law, so they did NOT exist in society. A black man despite being educated had the right to work as a laborer, or for less money than a white man. A black man had the right to be evicted from a whites only theater. Without protection from the state, black men had no rights. They were abused as outcasts in most of white society. Your lack of basic knowledge makes you exploitable by men who want to empower businesses over social equality.
>>yes and all these were fixed by law, without infringing on property rights
Property rights should never allow racism and social turmoil. Stupid people fight to make society less fair and more chaotic because they just assume a fair society comes about naturally. They don't realize that you have to drag the violent bigots screaming into the 21st century. Ron Paul supports social inequality, meaning property rights are greater than a healthy society to his kind.
@kDest laws are enacted by a legislative assemble, elected by people who have similar beliefs, who gain their beliefs from information. and since our access to the truth grows continuously, a truthfully informed society does become more fair naturally. a healthy society cannot be contrived. it has to happen by itself, by exposing the bad elements to the truth, and allowing them to realize it for themselves. that's the diff b/w a communist gvmt or a dictatorship, and a republic.
>>we WOULD'NT have racism persisting till this day because of the information boom.
If that is your argument, all I can say is that you have fallen victim to great hubris. The world isn't smarter. It is more inundated with useless trivia. No one understands anything, and no one can think critically. Everyone just absorbs tidbits of data that agree with their cultural biases, and find related silly things to believe. No one thinks deeply. THAT is what it brought us.
@kDest 'no one understands anything'. please speak meaningfully.
if you actually think that with the amount of information brought to us by news, television, movies, internet and basic schooling have not made people realize that races are equal, and that different people are good at different things, then you may be more biased by your opinions than you realize.
try and think, 'what if i'm wrong?' Ron Paul's statement about the civil war was really an eye-opener to me, that way.
I thought I did. People are inundated with useless information that makes it all but impossible for most to learn anything deep about any topic worth knowing about. Most people cannot sift through data very well. They just go with what's popular or recommended.
>>races are equal
This required concerted effort through law, culture and advertising to affect in the minds of people. People like Ron Paul fight to move it into the opposite direction.
@kDest you and i are people, and apparently we can use the info to our advantage. but yes, most ppl prefer to get their info form the culture n adverts. most ppl do NOT get their info from what law is passed. in fact, the law now enables racists to live in society while still harboring racist attitudes. by repealing the law, they will be forced to decide what their real stand is. so ron paul will help stamp racism out sooner, while protecting citizens rights at the same time.
@kDest >> You are mistaken if you think anybody gets information through law
reread my statement.
>>They may not act upon it.
precisely. when tey face the posibility of losing business because they are racist, they may have to reconsider their position. now they don't.
racism ends when people learn that races are equal.
citizens rights are protected when they have the right to do what they want, even unpleasant things, on their own property, without harming or forcing their views on others.
>>precisely. when tey face the posibility of losing business because they are racist, they may have to reconsider their position. now they don't.
Society is not a test tube that you can just throw your bad ideas into and hope for the best. When you support racism and bigotry, which you do by the way, you support all sorts of lives being ruined just so that society can fight ONCE AGAIN to banish racism through law, and you can learn your lesson the hard way like an idiot.
@kDest how will lives be ruined? are you forgetting that racists are a MINORITY in America? just like ppl who fear Red heads, or the amish, or homophobes. what do we do with these minorities? we give them their property rights, so that they can associate with their own group of friends without disturbing the peace, and we give them their freedom of speech so that others can listen to their views and be aware of them without being brainwashed into believing them.
Racist businesses means that racial minorities will have an even harder time getting a good job, or leading a business, or having any kind of success in life. You throw these people out to the dogs because like a good little tool you have been conditioned to believe that "the market will solve everything." People will suffer, lives will be suppressed, and stupid twits like yourself will do nothing but sit there drooling.
@kDest actually, as ron paul said, before the welfare state took hold, americans WANTED immigrants, because there are so many jobs in a capitalist society. instead, politicians decided to demean the minorities by saying they couldn't take care of themselves, and started to give them fish everyday, instead of teaching them how to fish. this is why very few from these communities opt out of the system and try to lead productive lives, making them even more dependent on stuff like obamacare.
>>instead, politicians decided to demean the minorities by saying they couldn't take care of themselves
You are such an ignorant tool. Protecting minorities from second-class status... THAT is demeaning them. I have to go, stupid people like you make my blood boil because you threaten to collapse society into an orgy of selfishness and exploitation, and stupid as you are you won't understand how it became that way. People like you threaten to give me a stroke.
@kDest you think that my concern for your health- which is being endangered coz you have chosen to fight tom jefferson n co. over the internet- is going to stop me from explaining the basics of self-governance to you?
or r u just spouting off coz you have no valid arguments and are simply a political stooge?
America used to be the place where you worked hard and got successful. period. Abe lincoln used the Dec of Independance to fight his war. the principles are consistent.
>>or r u just spouting off coz you have no valid arguments and are simply a political stooge?
I simply find your stupidity bad for one's mental health. You are like a flat-earther who insists that there is a conspiracy to promote a spherical earth, and no matter how much you are refuted you continue to say stupid things that have no basis in reality.
People like you are useful idiots. You serve no purpose other than to advance the agenda of others.
@kDest um.. the problem here is that i've been filtering your immature comments to remove the baseless attempts at insults and answer the arguments. and that last message had none.
still, allow me to point out the basic flaw in your insult:
my contention is that individuals should be responsible for themselves, and answerable to laws that they write.
your's is that a little intellectual elite should be in charge of deciding what the everyone's rights are.
>>my contention is that individuals should be responsible for themselves, and answerable to laws that they write.
No. Your contention is that we should let bigotry and racism rule the private sector, because magical freedom dust will solve racism once and for all, instead of the more likely and obvious scenario that it would just make America a whole lot more socially unequal and unbalanced.
You're just repeating stupid things you were taught. You're a parrot of stupid.
@kDest ??! you do realize that i just proposed a thesis and you ignored it and decided wat i should propose?
do you ever let up on trying to control ppl?
n 4 wat its worth, i've never said we should let racism rule. don't be daft. i said we should allow racism a fair chance to get trampled. i said the laws prohibited racism from ruling, but its society, not laws, that will deal it the death blow. you can't legislate ppl's likes n dislikes. that's the job of family, culture, n personal beliefs.
>>i said we should allow racism a fair chance to get trampled
It already has been. What you actually said was that society should let racism and bigotry be perpetrated without punishment. You are on the side of bigots. I don't care how much you pretend to be open-minded, but you are effectively no different from a bigot because you are on their side. You support everything that empowers them to harm the weak and powerless. You are a fool.
@kDest this is like the war on terror. you can't fight a war against a tactic.
and you can't legally abolish an attitude.
punishment is for crime.
and crimes can be punished withOUT suspending a person's rights, because those rights are UNALIENABLE.
THIS is what America is all about. if you don't like it, go live in Venezuela.
i support free speech. it may empower liars, but it empowers truth-tellers more, coz lies breed in the darkness, but the truth shines from horizon to horizon.
We can and we did. Isn't it great how social engineering and government interference proves your whole philosophy wrong? We did in 50 years what you couldn't in 2 centuries.
>>and crimes can be punished withOUT suspending a person's rights
No they can't, you idiot. The whole point of punishment is to deprive a person of rights. You just want a lawless society. Stupid twit.
@kDest 1st u say we can't ave property rights coz there are too many racists in america, n then you say that racism has been abolished.
an attitude can't be abolished. only the unlawful actions of that attitude can be. and thats the part of the civil rights act that everyone agrees with.
everyone is read their rights before their arrested. ppl in jail still have their rights, because they are UNALIENABLE. the gvmt doesnt give rights, so they can't take it away.
No. I said racism was legally abolished. Racism has no more legal room to stand on in the private sector. We succeeded in making bigots less powerful while idiots like yourself engaged in mental masturbation with your pet ideology that doesn't work.
>>the gvmt doesnt give rights
The only way rights can exist is through a body enforcing them. They do not exist on their own. Stupid libertarians again fail to grasp reality.
@kDest i'm not white. i run into my fair share of racists n communal-minded people. but i ve managed to win them over by representing a better way, rather than FORCE them over, which wouldn't have changed their mindset. so yes, i have gotten rid of more racists than the law ever could.
rights do exist on their own. read the dec. of independence. they are not enforced by anyone but their owners. their owners also elect reps. to safeguard their rights, n the ppl may choose the means to do so.
I know you're not. That's what makes you all the more stupid for fighting against your own interests because some wealthy white guy told you should, and you believed him.
>>rather than FORCE them over
Like this. Your ideology has made you so stupid that you think the job of law is to make people change how they feel. Laws punish people for acting in ways deemed unjust. Racism has no place in society, hence it is illegal. This keeps racists impotent.
@kDest if fight for truth, not for the interests of any group, coz i view ppl as individuals. freedom is preciaous to the individual who owns little, as well as to the one who owns much. it is our birthright. if you wish to forego it, tat's your wish, but 'let it not be said that we did nothing when we realized our freedoms were in jeopardy'.
>>job of the law..
??! you're making an ugly habit of taking what ive said and then saying that i've said the EXACT opposite.
Freedom is not property rights. Property rights are a small part of a large number of rights which make up a free society. Your ignorance of this makes you a ripe target for libertarian plutocratic propaganda.
>>taking what ive said and then saying that i've said the EXACT opposite
Because you ARE. In your rhetoric Freedom equal Slavery, Poverty equals Wealth, Selfishness equals Altruism, etc.
@kDest >>property rights are part of a large number of rights which make up a free society.
that's precisely what i've been saying all along, n what this video is all about. thank you for admitting that. coz most ppl's ignorance of this fact make them ripe for plutocratic propaganda.
btw, ron paul is one of thhe few politicians who are funded by the grassroots. look it up.
>>freedom=slavery. iv'e already pointed out the hypocrisy of that .
@kDest equality and social well-being are very much a part of libertarian ideals. you obviously don't know what my picture of freedom is, because u think it's silly, and i don't, and neither of us is mentally deficient. the welfare state is obviously not a good idea, since it isn't solvent.
once again, you ignore what i say, and fight a straw man. i spoke about ron paul and you talk about the present tea party which even Ron Paul admitted is being influenced by neo-cons.
>>equality and social well-being are very much a part of libertarian ideals
No they aren't. Libertarianism is the exact opposite of egalitarianism. Libertarianism seeks a class-based society, with elites who have power unrestrained by the welfare of everyone who isn't well-off. It is a belief system that is the prelude to aristocracy and entitlement.
>>don't know what my picture of freedom is
Off course I do. That's why I mock it. YOU don't understand its implications.
@kDest you certainly are off course if you think you know my views better than i or it's proponents do.
and the fact that you back a failed system of gvmt, and are willing to stand up to a country that has learnt from its mistakes and defy the majority of educated analysts of gvmt policy both past and present... my, that really speaks to your steadfastness. not many ppl are willing to run a country into the ground because they think they know best.. you may just get to be president some day.
>>you certainly are off course if you think you know my views better than i or it's proponents do
You're a bleeding idiot. A carrot knows your views better than you do. You are actually gullible enough to take your ideology at face value, with NO consideration for what it actually implies. I was right when I said you're a useful idiot, a pawn to be used by more intelligent leaders.
Do something smart for once and visit Somalia. Maybe you'll LEARN what your freedom looks like.
@kDest as you've already admitted, America was the original experiment in liberty and individual rights. so scientifically, the differences between early america n somalia can't be put down to liberty. teir situation was worse is several ways WITH a gvmt.
its also the reason why the somalian ppl push on, despite their problems. and areas like education and healthcare are slowly but steadily improving - because free ppl WANT health and education even more than a bureaucrat does.
Modern Somalia is an anarchy. If you want to see the closest thing to an unregulated market, move over there. Watch as warlords, religious factions, and zealots have taken over in place of government regulation. Then wonder in amazement at how despite having the most possible liberty in the world, every Somali has actually zero liberty because there is no protection and enforcement of that liberty.
@kDest again... a republic follows laws. a free market has certain laws and regulations. the type that are friendly to consumers and businesses, which will ensure economic growth.
a place where there is no law in the market and out does not encourage consumers, since there is absolutely no social contract - as u said, an anarchy.
but in the midst of the anarchy, there is individual responsibility. hospitals and schools are being built. that's libertarianism
>>a place where there is no law in the market and out does not encourage consumers, since there is absolutely no social contract - as u said, an anarchy
That's what a free market is. God, you're so stupid for not even knowing the meaning of the jargon you use.
>>hospitals and schools are being built. that's libertarianism
Libertarianism is about property. Capitalism is about profit. Schools and hospitals are non-profit institutions. When they are for-profit, they screw up.
@kDest you've been conditioned to believe that businessmen and property owners are a certain class of society. the fact is that everyone is a businessman of some form, offering goods and services for money. an employeee is doing business with his employer as much as he is with the customer. it is thus in te interest of all men to a)make profit and b)ensure the gen well-being of their consumer base. thus the republic has to follow laws outside of the marketplace which protect life and property.
It's not conditioning, it is fact. Look at the statistics for wealth distribution. Jesus Christ you're such a loyal tool.
>>an employeee is doing business with his employer as much as he is with the customer
No he isn't. The Employer is at an advantage: he doesn't NEED that single employee and many want to replace him. The employee needs the job for survival.
>>give people morality
Idiot. I said it ENFORCES morality. It ENFORCES the moral consensus.
@kDest the present wealth distribution came because of the neo-cons and their corporatism. look at america b4 the fed took over it all. look at the america of the founding father's day. it was hard work, but the nation prospered. now, in spite of the wealth accumulated in certain banks, the nation is bankrupt. however, if you allow the rich to come back and invest their money in the country again, everyone will once again have a shot at earning a living instead of collecting unemployment cheques
You mean the age of robber-barons who bought cities and forced their employees to live restricted lives in them? The age of men who corrupted government like today as people died in streets?
>>look at the america of the founding father's day
You mean the day when only white property owners could vote? The age of aristocracy?
>>the nation is bankrupt
We're bankrupt because taxes are so low, two wars, and a housing bubble.
@kDest you'll find most of the corporatism started with the robber-barons, who later bought banks and now get bailed out to get richer while the poor get poorer.
i was talking about the wealth distribution of the founding fathers day, as you well know. we've already discussed the imperfections of justice for all during those times.
you call 1/3rd tax LOW??
and the housing bubble n the wars are what the aus.eco.s warned AGAINST. the incumbent theories are what led to this mess.
Yes. 35% tax (the rich pay 15% actually) is the lowest rate income tax has been in 60 years. It used to be 70 to 80% taxes, from the 50s to the 80s. This was also America's golden age.
>>aus.eco.s warned AGAINST
They are a fringe school that does not use scientific rigor. Their warnings are the equivalent of a man yelling on the street, I.E. once in a blue moon he gets it right. Neokeynesian economics is actual, serious economics.
@kDest those high taxes were riddled with loopholes to wipe out credit card interest, and all in all, lower your individual takes. when regan took office, he lowered taxes, and wiped out these loopholes, which meant the gvmt's income actually rose.
that period was america's golden age for reasons other than those pseudo taxes. look it up.
aus eco makes few predictions. like most economics, it deals primarily with cause and effect. your analogy make no sense and amounts, once again, to slander.
>>when regan took office, he lowered taxes, and wiped out these loopholes
He lowered taxes dramatically and deregulated the system. He also introduced the idea that giving the richest 1% billions of dollars would benefit everyone (it doesn't). He never closed loopholes.
>>your analogy make no sense
Austrian economics is about eliminating the state and hoping that unregulated capitalism solves everything. That is why it predicts doom for us all the time. We use nothing like it.
@kDest i didn't claim regan was perfect. i was merely pointed out the fallacy in your argument that higher taxes is what caused the golden age.
austrian economics suggests a different policy, its true. but not one of anarchy, but rather, what the founders suggested. and their predictions have nothing to do with that world. their predictions are made regarding the present world, based on present policy. so their predictions are very precise - not in time - but in direct cause and effect.
@kDest no one wants to end the fda and civil rights act. the act is good. it ought to remain. only title2 sets a precedent for gvmt abuse like the patriot act. the fda could be phased out n put in the hands of the ppl. which, if you really mean what you say, is who the gvmt is suppossed to represent, so it shouldn't make a difference.
a free market is subject to the moral laws of the land, as i've explained b4.
repubs, dems n tea's are all infiltrated by neo-cons.
but yes, taft n goldwater were repubs n many of them like ron paul, r calling for a lowering of taxes, for the simple reason that they believe that when the money is with the ppl, it is spent in the right way. expecting bureaucrats to know wat ppl want n then subsidize those products is wasteful policy.
n wen taxes were high on paper, ppl were keeping their money. so it does prove my point.
>>repubs, dems n tea's are all infiltrated by neo-cons
No. Democrats are aligned with media, copyright, and insurance agency interests. Republicans are aligned with religious, plutocratic, oil and business interests. The Tea party is just a political front for the Koch Brothers plus some religious demagoguery.
>>subsidize those products
Subsidizing serves public interest usually. It's what gives us safe medicine for example.
@kDest subsidizing products serves a few companies, n tips the scales n their favour, thus eliminating the competitiveness of capitalism which serves the public by lowering prices n increasing innovation.
as ron paul says, we default all the time, because we are taking ppl's money, spending it on things ppl don't want, and then printing more money, thus reducing the value of their savings.
by living within our means, we create a stronger economy.
>>competitiveness of capitalism which serves the public by lowering prices
In the case of medicine this means false advertising of safety, no safety testing, and using what is most immediately useful with no sight of future consequences. This is why we subsidize research. Capitalism only pursues profit, not the public good.
>>we default all the time
We have a AAA credit rating which will dip to B status after default.
@kDest jesus' followers were not dependant on him for any physical need, which is what you're implying. furthermore, the new testament clearly teachhes that husbands are to love their wives... so hating one's family is not a prerequisite to following christ. the verse clearly refers to priority, unless you happen to be on the lookout to slander someone.
Look, I'm tired of this false statement. You are uneducated and gullible. Do yourself a favor and read Mises, and follow its followers. You will find that Austrian Economics is the cornerstone of the anarcho-capitalists.
>>so their predictions are very precise
Actually not. Deregulating pollution, factories, etc. would not bring us paradise. It would bring us unsafe factories and rivers that burst into flame again. Their social predictions are wrong.
@kDest anyone with half a brain could see the negative consequences of anarchy. and, as the world recognizes, even if you don't, mises n hayek were extremely smart. the 'anarchy' you refer to is merely an extremely limited social contract, where non-coercian was applied to all men. however, the fact that non-coercian was applied to all men itself inherently implies that there is a form of law that is made known to the public, which is not the conventional understanding of the term, 'anarchy'.
>>anyone with half a brain could see the negative consequences of anarchy
And yet we have Mises who fight for the cause of abolishing the state, and use Somalia to argue that anarchy improves economic productivity and the standard of living.
>>no one wants to end the fda and civil rights act
Libertarians do. Try again.
>>so it shouldn't make a difference
Of course it makes a difference. Business is not as accountable as government, and is for-profit. This is bad for safety.
@kDest a customer doesn't HAVE to buy stuff from te store (which the store owner has already bought and paid for). the owner needs the customer to buy something so that his business can survive.
everyone's a businessman in some form. offering goods and services for money.
>>a customer doesn't HAVE to buy stuff from te store
Unless of course it's a monopoly, or sold the person proprietary technology before that can only be repaired by the manufacturer. There are all sorts of ways business guarantee you have no choice.
>>ron paul approve of laws that serve to protect children
That's why he stuttered and panicked, and changed the topic, on the CNN republican debate when asked if an immigrant child should receive medical care in a hospital.
@kDest similarily, an employee can have unique combos of skills or may patent an innovation to ensure HE stays in business wid his employer.
he said an immigrant child that receives care by stealing from hardworking legal, tax-paying citizens, is wrong. this is a fact. however, he has, on numerous occasions, pointed to only a few yrs ago, when charity hospitals that treated for free wern't squeezed out by America, where people in need could go and receive fair treatment.
>>the welfare state is obviously not a good idea, since it isn't solvent
It isn't solvent because the rich are not being taxed sufficiently, and there are not high tariffs on imported goods which means they move all our jobs overseas. Libertarians fight to keep our nation in debt, by lowering taxes, as part of a cynical ploy to have us cut social welfare programs. This would have disastrous social consequences, but they simply don't care. They only care about property rights.
@kDest wow, you've really got your head screwed on backwards, havn't you? do you think businesses go oversees coz they trust foreigners more than their countrymen? or coz of some reverse racial bias? or perhaps coz they enjoy transport and communication problems?
all things being equal, American companies would prefer American workers. its the system that discourages profit and job creation. remove the taxes and the money comes home, and invested again by ppl who know how to make a profit.
Businesses go overseas because the managers are only concerned with profit. They have no empathy, or morality which governs their decisions. That is what capitalism is: a system that promotes the most profit-driven businesses. Not the most moral, or empathetic. What's great about sending jobs overseas is, they can pay workers a dollar a day, and dump their waste directly into the rivers without any laws against this. You want this for us.
The developing world often has lax environmental laws. That's why in China for example, some lands are completely polluted by heavy metals and compounds associated with semiconductor manufacture. It's the same in all sorts of nations, with tainted water supplies and bad ecologies.
@kDest ? people may CHOOSE not to apply their morals, but it doesn;t change the fact that the onus is on tem, not the legislature.
>> lax environmental laws.
agreed. but american companies can be sued in america or in the world court for harming people in another country. so it's not the avoidance of responsibility tat drives them away, but rather the red tape and the massive taxation which largely goes to fund illegal (under the american constitution) wars.
>>but it doesn;t change the fact that the onus is on tem, not the legislature
The purpose of government is to impose a certain morality onto the population, especially the rich and powerful, in the form of ethics and law. We cannot trust business to behave morally.
>>can be sued
If it happens in another country, it falls under the jurisdiction of that country. That's why Nike can use child labor and sweatshops. We cannot sue them because it is legal in China, Vietnam, etc.
@kDest nike, etc.. can be boycotted in america, another point i was trying to make with the racial discrimination argument. also, their owners n execs can be sued in america for violating international norms for treatment of workers. you'll find that businesses want to help america, but this all or none attitude of the federal gvmt prevents them from even doing a little bit. meanwhile, the welfare state attracts illegals to take away american jobs, furter killing the economy.
Except they aren't to any great effect. Gee, I wonder why? Oh, maybe because they are rich and buy very powerful propaganda to enhance their public image here. Also, it's really hard to make people care about what happens 10000 miles away.
>>violating international norms
No, not norms. Laws. In other words, we could only sue them if there were international laws against child labor. Freaking duh. Yet you oppose these laws.
@kDest so you agree that certain things can't be fought with mere law, but has to be fought in the minds and hearts of people across the globe. (and it is happening).
and as i've mentioned, libertarians support laws that protect children.
>>you'll find that businesses want to help america
No. they want to help themselves. That's why they moved all our jobs overseas. We have high standards for our workers, they chose to avoid those standards and employ people they can pay nothing, abuse, and dump waste on.
>>prevents them
Their callous greed prevents them from seeing that they could pay a good wage, sell at a fair price, and still make a profit ethically. They are mostly monsters, with really good propaganda.
right. and here i was taking you seriously. you'r argument mostly consists of name calling and demanding that the world follow your ideas of fairness. this is pubescent behavior. libertarianism isn't some idea that we wish people would believe in. it's real. all men ARE free to believe whatever they want to believe. you can't demand they do your bidding unless you convince them to. libertarianism is merely a call to reflect this fact in our legislature.
@kDest child labour happens because people are hungry. in any place, a chiild would rather be learning than workingto survive. solving te economic problems of the region by providing greater access to modern technology and education would solve child labour better than any law.
a libertarian would never condone a person crying out for freedom and being silenced. regardless of what their owners thought of him.
i didn't say industrialized nations, i said educated and informed populations.
QUIT TYPING STUPID STATEMENTS AND READ A FREAKING HISTORY BOOK. Child labor WAS NOT ENDED BY MARKET DEMAND. It was ended through enforcement of new laws outlawing child labor, and MANDATING EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN.
>>a libertarian would never condone a person crying out for freedom and being silenced
Of course they would. What do you think happened to the early formation of unions? Libertarian businessmen hired men to shoot them.
@kDest 1stly, you'll find that libertarians like ron paul approve of laws that serve to protect children. it's the adults who, they believe, should be free to make their own informed choices.
second, i didn't say that the market ended child labour, i said that its an economic problem as much as it is a social one. thus, if you eliminate the demand for child labour, i.e. increase the prosperity of te nation - by providing night school options and better sanitation 4 the ppl, you'll help end it.
It doesn't work that way. Child labor is a very desirable commodity. The more prosperous a nation is, the greater the demand for children.
>>a 'christian' who butchers a hundred people
Would be acting out god's teachings.
>>a 'libertarian' who restricts a person's civil liberties
Is only pursuing his self-interest on his property, which in libertarian priorities is more important than life or social welfare. He is a model libertarian.
@kDest by prosperity of te nation, i refer to the ppl of the nation.
and you'l find tht most children, if they DIDN't have to work to eat, WOULD rather go to school, regardless of the demand from employers.
actually, he wouldn't be acting out of christ's teachings. does your senseless slander ooze everywhere?
read ron paul's explanation of liberty before u decide u know what your talking about. i agree, a libertarian like you would be a terrible neighbour, coz you have no respect for fellow man.
Christ tells you to hate your family. The biblical god praises genocide.
>>coz you have no respect for fellow man
Libertarians only care about themselves. They want to benefit from civil society and infrastructure but refuse to pay for it. They mooch off of society, off of everyone else's work and pretend to not owe society anything.
@kDest he tell ppl to hate their family and life if they want to come to hhim n be his disciple, because no oter obligation can stand in the way. however, being Jesus' disciple denotes non-violence and a life devoted to glorifying God and tolerating public abuse for it.
quite the opposite of wat u imply.
since you cannot comprehend that responsibility is an integral part of liberty, it's no wonder that you are so biased against freedom.
@kDest really? you learned that claiming 'they coerced' would get one off SCOT FREE in REALITY university?
u'll find your comments like 'selling tainted food is freedom' betrays a -ve bias against freedom.
your latest slander regarding responsibility is so painfully false that i won't bother opposing it.
Jesus' teachings like a cult leader? in that they both have followers who make sacrifices? wow. you should be an investigative journalist. for a tabloid.
When there is a confrontation, and the only witnesses are the perpetrator and the victim, it is essentially your word against his. Since we're talking about landowners, we're talking about a wealthy perpetrator and a victim who could be poor, or working class, in other words a person who has no money to bribe or pressure the investigations. A landowner on the other hand can probably afford to pressure his investigators or bribe them.
@kDest your argument reflects a misconception of the human soul. you assume that anyone who has money can bribe anyone else. not true. there are plenty of ppl of strong moral fibre, who simply cannot be bought and will follow their innate sense of justice in making decisions. the legal system attempts to identify those men and make them judges. with more information, corrupt judges are discovered and impeached easier.
Only a fool bases a society on the hope that there will be enough good men to make it work. A wise person makes their society hard to corrupt proactively.
@kDest you're trying to regulate ppl's humanity! even eugenists n communists n dictators had speeches on how their way would make a more efficient society, but they didn't take into account the intangible needs of man, like freedom, since it was not a very important part of educated discussion.
and what ppl like mises fought for was not a political theory of anarchy, as ive pointed out earlier, but rather, to bring these issues into the realm of political policy.
Every enforced freedom has a cost that negates another class of freedom. Free speech negates freedom from offense and free access to reliable information. Free religion negates freedom from its social effects on society. Unregulated markets negate our freedom to reliably safe products.
>>intangible needs of man, like freedom
Case in point, your concept of freedom negates my political and workspace freedom. You know nothing.
@kDest a 'christian' who butchers a hundred people can't be said to be following the teachings of christ, who was a man of peace. e probably just assumed the christian label to blend in with society. similarly, a 'libertarian' who restricts a person's civil liberties can hardly be called a libertarian.
at the same time, you must consider what methods some union workers use to coerce their bosses. tat is unlibertarian as well, though the simple formation of a union isnt.
>>what methods some union workers use to coerce their bosses
In libertarian semantics, when an employer hires armed men to shoot employees, it is self defense because it happened on employer property which means that the employees forfeit all rights there and automatically are the aggressors if they do not to submit to the employer. If the union workers band together and protest, they are the aggressors because they deprive the employer of his property (rightful profits).
@kDest if it happened outside the workplace, it would be murder, and the law would put the murderer and the conspirator behind bars. if it happened on the employer's property, it would land him in worse trouble, coz the knife cuts both ways. sure, the employees have to follow the employer's rules on his property, but they also sign a contract, making the employer responsible for their safety.
>>forfeit all rights
what part of unalienable rights do you not understand?
>>what part of unalienable rights do you not understand
In libertarian dogma, all rights are subordinate to property. Free speech? Life? Liberty? It all ends when you enter someone's property. They can imagine that you "initiated force" and shoot you dead. Or they can censor your free speech. Or they can have you sign a contract that makes you a slave. It's all FREEDOM (actually lack thereof, but what do you care about details, you're a moron who never reads a book).
@kDest once again, you lose sight of te responsibility of freedom.
when a person infringes on your freedom, or your property, you don't shoot them dead. you call the law, and they follow proper procedure to prosecute the alleged offender while still respecting his unalienable rights.
freedom to own a gun doesnt mean you won't still go to
lunch counters, lunch counters, lunch counters....LOL
how about talking about the jew bankers raping america and sending out boys to die for the lies of the zionists.
glower125 1 week ago
dumb down is what rachel maddow was doing to the issue. because people have been dumbed down and that's how these zionists are presenting the news.
Jews are the scum of the earth.
glower125 1 week ago
Look How This Pussy Avoids Rachel's Simple Questions.
TheJungleCityKilla 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
mufc4everch 2 weeks ago
not just bars but restaurants too. i went out to eat w a friend and his gf who are jamaican at a place that was highly recommended by a local(we were on a business trip) ppl there were giving them looks, even the staff, i didn't notice right away but they did.it took forever to serve us and the food was crap. by the time we were done everyone else was sitting on the other side of the restaurant.but not everyone who's white knows its a racist place, im sure if they did they'd stop going.
pffffffuckthat 3 weeks ago
today tons of privately owned places are very segregated and we all know this. think of all the different kinds or bars (those of u 21 and up). yuppie bars, gay bars, jock bars,bars in the hood, hipster bars, country hick bars,etc. and if you don't fit in everyone notices. they don't kick you out but you won't be back.
pffffffuckthat 3 weeks ago
he is right but should've made the point that the government shouldn't be responsible for its people, in the sense that if there were places that were white only, then the people of that town have a PERSONAL responsibility to disavow, and hopefully boycott that place out of business, and not a legal one. the people of the town go in and support the racism are then easy to pick out as racist. nothing would be different from now accept the ignorance would be in plain view not hidden.
pffffffuckthat 3 weeks ago
Mannnnn...I like Rand Paul, but this entire interview was one long political dodge. He needs to learn a little bit from his dad about giving straight answers.
aggrajag2813 1 month ago
Creepy little weasel. Got his views on race from reading his dad's news letters, I guess.
MilkmanConspiracy 1 month ago
Rachel racism is going to exist. Trying to hide it under laws like it's not there isn't very realistic, won't stop violence or change minds but allows precedence for other liberty infringements we may not like. ONLY the racist can cure himself.
ericr64 1 month ago
When they don't have anything on you,they go to the race card.
rogerable77 1 month ago
@rogerable77
He might not be racist, but his argument makes no sense. The market won't correct for racism b/c it didn't do that before 1964. The Civil Rights Act is not even about special treatment. Simply fair treatment.
If you don't like integration (or black people) that's your opinion, and this is America. But the idea of people choosing whether to serve me based on my skin color alone is disconcerting.
RBG02005 1 month ago
I cant believe that this stupid bitch had a 20 minute interview with a guy running for US senate and she asked the same question for the entire 20 minutes. What a disgrace
midnightdt 1 month ago
Angry lesbian.
boaire 2 months ago
F a Rachel Maddow
CityLoch 2 months ago
Take Rachel's bowling alley example - not allowing black kids. What if it was short haired liberal leaning brunetts - not allowed inside?
Rachel or a business associate could very well open a bowling alley which permitted everyone thereby squeezing the bigot out of the market. Why reward the alley that prevents freedom in the first place?
This is a market issue not a legislative one.
Government force is only a violation of our freedoms - even if we don't agree with the action of that freedom
bigtex1453 4 months ago
@bigtex1453 That's a nice little fairy tale, but the reality is that your market solution didn't work. Pre-1964 bigots were not squeezed out of the market, if they were then the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.
Civil rights > property rights.
redlightmax 1 month ago
@redlightmax
What do you think the Black Codes and the Jim Crow laws were?
Precious government regulation forcing segregation. Thats right - look it up.
Even if a business owner wanted to serve blacks they couldn't - for fear of breaking the law - and law breaking happened all the time. You're suggesting an unjust legislation preventing private property owners from using their land as they see fit to repeal an unjust legislation segregating the people, as good. I see it as all bad
bigtex1453 1 month ago
@bigtex1453 "Even if a business owner wanted to serve blacks they couldn't - for fear of breaking the law - and law breaking happened all the time." That's why some businesses wanted the federal legislation to force their hand, like playing good cop bad cop.
There's a brilliant online article that explains this better than I ever could, it's called "Cato Scholar Scolds Rand Paul, Gives OK to Soup Nazi"
I'll take real-world pragmatism over libertarian dogma any day of the week.
redlightmax 1 month ago
@redlightmax
"I'll take real-world pragmatism over libertarian dogma any day of the week."
You mean the force of government and the loss of private property rights. That's exactly what I'm afraid of.
Oh - and as far as Nazi's are concerned, Hitler did not believe in property rights of any kind. So before you start tossing out slander - look at the policy that you're advocating and who agrees with you.
In the real world money & property are inalienable rights.
bigtex1453 1 month ago
@bigtex1453 Civil rights > property rights.
redlightmax 1 month ago
@redlightmax
civil liberties, personal freedom, property rights, free speech, habeus corpus, right to a fair and speedy trial, right to bear arms, and the right to challenge and oppose a government that oversteps these - all of these rights are equally important. That's why we have the bill of rights.
All rights are =
I want freedom, independence, and equality for everyone - white black Hispanic middle eastern - everyone
You want government force and privilege for a select few
bigtex1453 1 month ago
@bigtex1453 b/c not everyone considers visible minorities to be equal with whites. what's so hard to understand?
blastsummit 3 weeks ago
@blastsummit
Again, seeing People in groups only creates division. And because not everyone sees minorities as equals - who are themselves a minority in society, you're advocating to punish all of the citizens of this country in an attempt to manufacture social justice.
The problem with these types of policies is the fact that there are always negative unintended consequences that outweigh any initial drive & benefit of the policy.
bigtex1453 3 weeks ago
@bigtex1453 you make no sense
blastsummit 3 weeks ago
@redlightmax
You are the discriminator because you see people in groups as a collective. And you want to give "more" rights to certain groups. I see everyone as an individual with equality under the law.
Additionally, are rights are inalienable in accordance to Natural Law. They can't be taken away. They are not granted by government. Therefore they have no authority to take them away or the authority to grant that which they do not have the power to give in the first place
bigtex1453 1 month ago
@bigtex1453 "You want government force and privilege for a select few"
You mean like the "privilege" for minorities to be served in restaurants? Yes, I sure do, that's why I'm in favor of the Civil Rights Act. Guilty as charged.
"Additionally, are rights are inalienable in accordance to Natural Law."
Unfortunately not, otherwise our rights would be valid everywhere in the world. Try exercising those inalienable rights in North Korea and see how far it gets you!
redlightmax 1 month ago
@redlightmax
The Civil Rights act took rights away. Property rights. All they had to do was repeal the Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes. They integrated in the north just fine. Restaurants or businesses that did not serve both blacks and whites - went out of business. The money is all green. Thats what matters.
As far as NK - so you're saying that because the government of NK violates the rights of the people in NK that they don't have rights? You're confused.
bigtex1453 1 month ago
@redlightmax
Also it's tough to have a debate about this subject in 500 characters - so if you really want to talk about it in detail please email me at achillesarmy{at}gmail{dot}com
bigtex1453 1 month ago
Civil rights issues are constitutional not up to private businesses. Whether you are allowed to carry a gun is up to private businesses. What's so hard with the distinction?
RuinSonic 5 months ago
Went to a night club with a friend in Queens NY where we were refused access by the bouncer ( a non- Korean) who informed us that the Korean ownership had specifically instructed him not to let in non Koreans. My friend and I are white by the way.
Dancingbirdfly 6 months ago
Should atheist organizations have to higher Christians? Christians be required to higher atheists? I think that is his point. Unfortunately not enough people get it.
Would have been better than his gun owner comment. However he was on the spot.
zoulkyud 6 months ago
@zoulkyud No he wasn't the difference between the gun owner thing and the racist business owners is that one is a civil rights issue and one isn't. And why should Christian business owners need to ask you what version of Christian you are? It's not a civil rights issue if the question is relavent to the mission of the business. If you are a non profit activist you have every right to find people who agree with you. If you are obviously discriminating for no reason that is not good.
RuinSonic 5 months ago
@zoulkyud What's really against freedom of speech is allowing people to squelch a minority opinion in the biggest way which is to not hire them or let them in your private club or businesses. If you want to squelch anothers opinion you take their job, and their money away. It doesn't matter how free you claim the business owners get in return, the real people needing protection don't have freedom to be honest or keep those views.
RuinSonic 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rachel Maddow = "Perverted mistake of nature"!
davdmaher 7 months ago
everyone has the right to be racist. the law just prevents them from ACTing racist. it has no effect on who they choose to be or what they choose to believe.
in fact, wat we've now done is to give equal patronage to businesses owned by racist owners and to businesses who sincerely want to benefit society. if we restore private property rights, businesses will have to make a decision on wat they really believe, and racism will be stamped out faster.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>if we restore private property rights, businesses will have to make a decision on wat they really believe, and racism will be stamped out faster.
This is one of the stupidest statements I've read in a while. Several decades ago, when these laws did NOT exist, social segregation and inequality was at its height. Racism was NEVER poised to end on its own. If you were black, you were an outsider. What the hell do you think minority means? It means you have no power.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest actually, i think slavery was when racial inequality was at its height. it was all going downhill from there. white racists had to have secret societies to do damage. read freakenomics. when their secrecy was lost, so was their power.
but more had to be done. the law had to come into force. everyone agrees to that. its just the last part of the legislature that sets a bad precedent. the rest by itself would be enough to ensure that everyone respected everyone's rights.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>i think slavery was when racial inequality was at its height.
We're not talking about 150 years ago. We're talking about Civil Rights, 50 years ago.
>>it was all going downhill from there
No it wasn't. Every decade saw more and more violence and turmoil from suppression of basic equality.
>>the rest by itself would be enough to ensure that everyone respected everyone's rights
A large part of inequality was PRIVATE discrimination. It wouldn't have gone away naturally.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest racism bred slavery. Abe Lincoln led from the front to try end it. as more people realized that all men are equal, the concept of slavery became abhorrent. then, when the time was right, mr king led from the front, to abolish institutionalized racism. even without the law, this movement itself saw the tide turning on racism. with the law, it was greatly suppressed.
private racism is a hurtful opinion. it isn't illegal to have a mean opinion. govmt protects dignity, not feelings.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>private racism is a hurtful opinion. it isn't illegal to have a mean opinion. govmt protects dignity, not feelings.
Again, you talk from ignorance. Private racism means that businesses everywhere can choose to not serve your kind. There are always racial groups and cultures that have mass fear towards them. Private racism means that they will always be on the fringe of society, without basic service, because the MAJORITY fears them and wants nothing to do with them.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest how can you say i talk from ignorance when you are the one who believes the majority of americans are racist??! after 1964 ppl woke up. u say that woke coz of the last part of the act, which was rubber stamped by white ppl. n i say the entire act was a symptom of the waking which happened because of the charisma of the black preacher.
i just saw your channel, n realized that reasoning with you is foolish, since you've dedicated an entire channel to calling libertarians fools, but hey...
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>how can you say i talk from ignorance
Because you have no concept of how the world is or how it works. That is why you are ignorant. In the middle of a time when our President is widely believed to be a covert Muslim, and homosexuals are routinely denied equal marriage protections, you have the nerve to pretend that racism and bigotry do not exist.
>>after 1964 ppl woke up
And it is statements like this which put you at great odds with reality, and make you look a fool.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest actually, i said racists were the minority. and they are.
how do you think the 1964 act was passed? coz a minority in congress passed it or a majority? and that was a symptom of intelligent ppl speaking up. remove your 'the world is racist' glasses n look at the facts.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>i just saw your channel, n realized that reasoning with you is foolish, since you've dedicated an entire channel to calling libertarians fools
Libertarians are fools. You have a simplistic notion of reality, where everything is solved by property rights. Not enlightenment, not education, not a social backbone which protects the weak. No, property rights. That is all libertarianism is: property rights trump equality and societal health. Everything else is second to property.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest actually, libertarianism is liberty trumps everything. hence the name. liberty is the right to own your life property, and to do what you deem best with it, while not infringing on other's ability to do the same. property rights aren't the solution, but they are a basic right. just like education. society doesn't need to be RUN by a few elite. SOCIETY - everyone's a part of it! so if everyone is weak, society will be weak. but a few strong can stand up to warmongers n oligarchs.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
OK so RONY here is saying that. "YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE RACIST!" If you dumb this entire conversation down. that what it sums up to. The businesses have a right to be racist.
yushinzzo2 8 months ago
WTF?
Americans are free to bring guns to any public place?
So... you can bring an Uzi to the library, a M16 to school and an AK47 to congress?
Is that seriously the case?
ZarlanTheGreen 8 months ago
his view makes perfect sense. all intelligent people, including black people, should be able to support it without being ostracized from society for 'promoting racism'. there are other ways of promoting equality for all humans, without force of law or might. social issues should be dealt with socially (picketing, social awareness events) political issues by legislation, and economic issues by boycotting.etc...
AlanMathewPolson 9 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>his view makes perfect sense
Only if you are self-absorbed and cannot compromise for anything no matter the good that comes from it.
>>should be able to support it without being ostracized from society for 'promoting racism'
His rhetoric supports racism because it convinces people that the world would be a better place if we just gave racists unchecked power. This is clearly false, but if enough fools buy it, social disaster will follow in the form of segregation.
kDest 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>there are other ways of promoting equality for all humans, without force of law or might
You can say that now as you are comfortable and secure. When you are among the weak and vulnerable picketing businesses, being threatened with violence, and attacked, then one day you may understand why we need the power of government to give legal voice to the powerless.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest unchecked compromise will lead to lawlessness. we have to consider the precedent it sets. racism did not die down because it was forced out. you cannot force love, only submission. it was right thinking and informed people that dealt it the death blow.
consider free speech: some speech may be hateful n hurtful. but when it's out in the open, it can be destroyed. the truth always wins in an open battlefield. unchecked power to the powerless allows them to fizzle out, instead of smoldering.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@kDest Gandhi: first they ignore you. then they laugh at you. then they fight you. then you win.
winning is not a case of minority or majority. its a case of truth. the truth wins ultimately. by locking away lies you preserve them.
Martin Luther King Jr's marches and speeches weren't successful because they brought about a change in the law (though, as Paul says, most of the bill was necessary) rather, it was successful coz it changed people's outlook. THAT'S how you solve a social problem.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>its a case of truth. the truth wins ultimately
That's not even close to being true. Have you never heard of organized religion?
>>THAT'S how you solve a social problem.
Without that law, segregation would have persisted until this day. We would probably see a movement of violent black nationalists supporting fringe secessionist movements and there would be attempts to introduce an amendment abolishing workplace discrimination, due to the federal precedent denying it.
kDest 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>unchecked compromise will lead to lawlessness. we have to consider the precedent it sets. racism did not die down because it was forced out.
Racism dies down because it was forced out, publicly ridiculed, and legally punished. Then there was enough space for a slow effort of making each generation less bigoted and more integrated. Look at what happened in a mere five decades, we went from segregation to a mulatto president. That is a HUGE change very quickly.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest i didn't get your organized religion point.
i have to reiterate my point about truth, since you've either ignored it or didn't understand it. we WOULD'NT have racism persisting till this day because of the information boom. the world is smarter now. if you were to repeal the law and import white supremists, racism would not work, because people can recognize the fact that different races are good at different things, but are all worthy of equal respect.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@kDest and the fact that there are still racists in the country is proof of my words. when the catholic church held full sway, people were corrupt and very un-Christ-like. when people began to debate the validity of religion, people were forced to analyse their shallow beliefs. some gave it up and became atheists, and others went back to the truth they could glean, and became strong followers of Christ. by disallowing people to debate the issue you merely mask the symptoms. the disease remains.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
My point about organized religion is that nothing else, not even government, has been more successful in killing truth. Case in point, thanks to Christianity and Islam we lost great libraries which held accounts of the culture and history of the ancient world, forever.
>>by disallowing people to debate
What does debating have to do with this, though? We're talking about letting business owners tell a black man "Get out of my store, spook." That's not healthy for society.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest i think we better stick to one or two msgs at a time.
However, you grouped these two points well, because, as i mentioned before organized religion was unhealthy for not allowing intellectual debate, despite the fact that for a long time, it was people who had a great thirst for knowledge who sought a career in religion. with the reformation, intelligent people asked questions, which made it better, since intelligence has to be met with intelligence.
intelligent people aren't racist.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>intelligent people aren't racist.
Of course they can be. There is nothing which requires intelligence be followed with tolerance and respect for difference.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest here, by racist, i mean the belief that certain races are inferior to others, genetically, and therefore socially and productively. it is the belief that those qualities that make human beings the dominant species on the planet (such as intelligence, appreciation for art, etc...) are present more in certain races than others.
intelligent people are generally informed enough to know that this simply isn't true. thus intelligent people aren't racist.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
Blacks' rights were NOT protected by law, so they did NOT exist in society. A black man despite being educated had the right to work as a laborer, or for less money than a white man. A black man had the right to be evicted from a whites only theater. Without protection from the state, black men had no rights. They were abused as outcasts in most of white society. Your lack of basic knowledge makes you exploitable by men who want to empower businesses over social equality.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest yes and all these were fixed by law, without infringing on property rights. rand paul supports those measures.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>yes and all these were fixed by law, without infringing on property rights
Property rights should never allow racism and social turmoil. Stupid people fight to make society less fair and more chaotic because they just assume a fair society comes about naturally. They don't realize that you have to drag the violent bigots screaming into the 21st century. Ron Paul supports social inequality, meaning property rights are greater than a healthy society to his kind.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest laws are enacted by a legislative assemble, elected by people who have similar beliefs, who gain their beliefs from information. and since our access to the truth grows continuously, a truthfully informed society does become more fair naturally. a healthy society cannot be contrived. it has to happen by itself, by exposing the bad elements to the truth, and allowing them to realize it for themselves. that's the diff b/w a communist gvmt or a dictatorship, and a republic.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>we WOULD'NT have racism persisting till this day because of the information boom.
If that is your argument, all I can say is that you have fallen victim to great hubris. The world isn't smarter. It is more inundated with useless trivia. No one understands anything, and no one can think critically. Everyone just absorbs tidbits of data that agree with their cultural biases, and find related silly things to believe. No one thinks deeply. THAT is what it brought us.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest 'no one understands anything'. please speak meaningfully.
if you actually think that with the amount of information brought to us by news, television, movies, internet and basic schooling have not made people realize that races are equal, and that different people are good at different things, then you may be more biased by your opinions than you realize.
try and think, 'what if i'm wrong?' Ron Paul's statement about the civil war was really an eye-opener to me, that way.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>please speak meaningfully.
I thought I did. People are inundated with useless information that makes it all but impossible for most to learn anything deep about any topic worth knowing about. Most people cannot sift through data very well. They just go with what's popular or recommended.
>>races are equal
This required concerted effort through law, culture and advertising to affect in the minds of people. People like Ron Paul fight to move it into the opposite direction.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest you and i are people, and apparently we can use the info to our advantage. but yes, most ppl prefer to get their info form the culture n adverts. most ppl do NOT get their info from what law is passed. in fact, the law now enables racists to live in society while still harboring racist attitudes. by repealing the law, they will be forced to decide what their real stand is. so ron paul will help stamp racism out sooner, while protecting citizens rights at the same time.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>most ppl do NOT get their info from what law is passed
You are mistaken if you think anybody gets information through law.
>>by repealing the law, they will be forced to decide what their real stand is
They already know it. They may not act upon it.
>>so ron paul will help stamp racism out sooner
Racism is never going to end. The law keeps us protected while it exists.
>>while protecting citizens rights at the same time
No, it is the exact opposite of protection.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest >> You are mistaken if you think anybody gets information through law
reread my statement.
>>They may not act upon it.
precisely. when tey face the posibility of losing business because they are racist, they may have to reconsider their position. now they don't.
racism ends when people learn that races are equal.
citizens rights are protected when they have the right to do what they want, even unpleasant things, on their own property, without harming or forcing their views on others.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>precisely. when tey face the posibility of losing business because they are racist, they may have to reconsider their position. now they don't.
Society is not a test tube that you can just throw your bad ideas into and hope for the best. When you support racism and bigotry, which you do by the way, you support all sorts of lives being ruined just so that society can fight ONCE AGAIN to banish racism through law, and you can learn your lesson the hard way like an idiot.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest how will lives be ruined? are you forgetting that racists are a MINORITY in America? just like ppl who fear Red heads, or the amish, or homophobes. what do we do with these minorities? we give them their property rights, so that they can associate with their own group of friends without disturbing the peace, and we give them their freedom of speech so that others can listen to their views and be aware of them without being brainwashed into believing them.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>how will lives be ruined?
Racist businesses means that racial minorities will have an even harder time getting a good job, or leading a business, or having any kind of success in life. You throw these people out to the dogs because like a good little tool you have been conditioned to believe that "the market will solve everything." People will suffer, lives will be suppressed, and stupid twits like yourself will do nothing but sit there drooling.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest actually, as ron paul said, before the welfare state took hold, americans WANTED immigrants, because there are so many jobs in a capitalist society. instead, politicians decided to demean the minorities by saying they couldn't take care of themselves, and started to give them fish everyday, instead of teaching them how to fish. this is why very few from these communities opt out of the system and try to lead productive lives, making them even more dependent on stuff like obamacare.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>instead, politicians decided to demean the minorities by saying they couldn't take care of themselves
You are such an ignorant tool. Protecting minorities from second-class status... THAT is demeaning them. I have to go, stupid people like you make my blood boil because you threaten to collapse society into an orgy of selfishness and exploitation, and stupid as you are you won't understand how it became that way. People like you threaten to give me a stroke.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest you think that my concern for your health- which is being endangered coz you have chosen to fight tom jefferson n co. over the internet- is going to stop me from explaining the basics of self-governance to you?
or r u just spouting off coz you have no valid arguments and are simply a political stooge?
America used to be the place where you worked hard and got successful. period. Abe lincoln used the Dec of Independance to fight his war. the principles are consistent.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>or r u just spouting off coz you have no valid arguments and are simply a political stooge?
I simply find your stupidity bad for one's mental health. You are like a flat-earther who insists that there is a conspiracy to promote a spherical earth, and no matter how much you are refuted you continue to say stupid things that have no basis in reality.
People like you are useful idiots. You serve no purpose other than to advance the agenda of others.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest um.. the problem here is that i've been filtering your immature comments to remove the baseless attempts at insults and answer the arguments. and that last message had none.
still, allow me to point out the basic flaw in your insult:
my contention is that individuals should be responsible for themselves, and answerable to laws that they write.
your's is that a little intellectual elite should be in charge of deciding what the everyone's rights are.
which will advance other's agenda?
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>my contention is that individuals should be responsible for themselves, and answerable to laws that they write.
No. Your contention is that we should let bigotry and racism rule the private sector, because magical freedom dust will solve racism once and for all, instead of the more likely and obvious scenario that it would just make America a whole lot more socially unequal and unbalanced.
You're just repeating stupid things you were taught. You're a parrot of stupid.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest ??! you do realize that i just proposed a thesis and you ignored it and decided wat i should propose?
do you ever let up on trying to control ppl?
n 4 wat its worth, i've never said we should let racism rule. don't be daft. i said we should allow racism a fair chance to get trampled. i said the laws prohibited racism from ruling, but its society, not laws, that will deal it the death blow. you can't legislate ppl's likes n dislikes. that's the job of family, culture, n personal beliefs.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>i said we should allow racism a fair chance to get trampled
It already has been. What you actually said was that society should let racism and bigotry be perpetrated without punishment. You are on the side of bigots. I don't care how much you pretend to be open-minded, but you are effectively no different from a bigot because you are on their side. You support everything that empowers them to harm the weak and powerless. You are a fool.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest this is like the war on terror. you can't fight a war against a tactic.
and you can't legally abolish an attitude.
punishment is for crime.
and crimes can be punished withOUT suspending a person's rights, because those rights are UNALIENABLE.
THIS is what America is all about. if you don't like it, go live in Venezuela.
i support free speech. it may empower liars, but it empowers truth-tellers more, coz lies breed in the darkness, but the truth shines from horizon to horizon.
AlanMathewPolson 8 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>you can't fight a war against a tactic.
and you can't legally abolish an attitude.
We can and we did. Isn't it great how social engineering and government interference proves your whole philosophy wrong? We did in 50 years what you couldn't in 2 centuries.
>>and crimes can be punished withOUT suspending a person's rights
No they can't, you idiot. The whole point of punishment is to deprive a person of rights. You just want a lawless society. Stupid twit.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest 1st u say we can't ave property rights coz there are too many racists in america, n then you say that racism has been abolished.
an attitude can't be abolished. only the unlawful actions of that attitude can be. and thats the part of the civil rights act that everyone agrees with.
everyone is read their rights before their arrested. ppl in jail still have their rights, because they are UNALIENABLE. the gvmt doesnt give rights, so they can't take it away.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>then you say that racism has been abolished
No. I said racism was legally abolished. Racism has no more legal room to stand on in the private sector. We succeeded in making bigots less powerful while idiots like yourself engaged in mental masturbation with your pet ideology that doesn't work.
>>the gvmt doesnt give rights
The only way rights can exist is through a body enforcing them. They do not exist on their own. Stupid libertarians again fail to grasp reality.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest i'm not white. i run into my fair share of racists n communal-minded people. but i ve managed to win them over by representing a better way, rather than FORCE them over, which wouldn't have changed their mindset. so yes, i have gotten rid of more racists than the law ever could.
rights do exist on their own. read the dec. of independence. they are not enforced by anyone but their owners. their owners also elect reps. to safeguard their rights, n the ppl may choose the means to do so.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>i'm not white
I know you're not. That's what makes you all the more stupid for fighting against your own interests because some wealthy white guy told you should, and you believed him.
>>rather than FORCE them over
Like this. Your ideology has made you so stupid that you think the job of law is to make people change how they feel. Laws punish people for acting in ways deemed unjust. Racism has no place in society, hence it is illegal. This keeps racists impotent.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest if fight for truth, not for the interests of any group, coz i view ppl as individuals. freedom is preciaous to the individual who owns little, as well as to the one who owns much. it is our birthright. if you wish to forego it, tat's your wish, but 'let it not be said that we did nothing when we realized our freedoms were in jeopardy'.
>>job of the law..
??! you're making an ugly habit of taking what ive said and then saying that i've said the EXACT opposite.
u do the same with Dr Paul.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>if you wish to forego it, tat's your wish
Freedom is not property rights. Property rights are a small part of a large number of rights which make up a free society. Your ignorance of this makes you a ripe target for libertarian plutocratic propaganda.
>>taking what ive said and then saying that i've said the EXACT opposite
Because you ARE. In your rhetoric Freedom equal Slavery, Poverty equals Wealth, Selfishness equals Altruism, etc.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest >>property rights are part of a large number of rights which make up a free society.
that's precisely what i've been saying all along, n what this video is all about. thank you for admitting that. coz most ppl's ignorance of this fact make them ripe for plutocratic propaganda.
btw, ron paul is one of thhe few politicians who are funded by the grassroots. look it up.
>>freedom=slavery. iv'e already pointed out the hypocrisy of that .
the rest, as usual, is mindless propaganda.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
That is why you are a twit. You use glittering generalities like "freedom" without knowing what the words mean.
>>that's precisely what i've been saying all along
No it isn't. Your picture of freedom is absolute property rights. Nothing else, like societal welfare or equality, matters. Just property.
>>funded by the grassroots
Libertarianism, especially the TEA Party, are all funded by billionaires who seek minimal taxes, minimal regulations, and no environmental laws.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest equality and social well-being are very much a part of libertarian ideals. you obviously don't know what my picture of freedom is, because u think it's silly, and i don't, and neither of us is mentally deficient. the welfare state is obviously not a good idea, since it isn't solvent.
once again, you ignore what i say, and fight a straw man. i spoke about ron paul and you talk about the present tea party which even Ron Paul admitted is being influenced by neo-cons.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>equality and social well-being are very much a part of libertarian ideals
No they aren't. Libertarianism is the exact opposite of egalitarianism. Libertarianism seeks a class-based society, with elites who have power unrestrained by the welfare of everyone who isn't well-off. It is a belief system that is the prelude to aristocracy and entitlement.
>>don't know what my picture of freedom is
Off course I do. That's why I mock it. YOU don't understand its implications.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest you certainly are off course if you think you know my views better than i or it's proponents do.
and the fact that you back a failed system of gvmt, and are willing to stand up to a country that has learnt from its mistakes and defy the majority of educated analysts of gvmt policy both past and present... my, that really speaks to your steadfastness. not many ppl are willing to run a country into the ground because they think they know best.. you may just get to be president some day.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>you certainly are off course if you think you know my views better than i or it's proponents do
You're a bleeding idiot. A carrot knows your views better than you do. You are actually gullible enough to take your ideology at face value, with NO consideration for what it actually implies. I was right when I said you're a useful idiot, a pawn to be used by more intelligent leaders.
Do something smart for once and visit Somalia. Maybe you'll LEARN what your freedom looks like.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest as you've already admitted, America was the original experiment in liberty and individual rights. so scientifically, the differences between early america n somalia can't be put down to liberty. teir situation was worse is several ways WITH a gvmt.
its also the reason why the somalian ppl push on, despite their problems. and areas like education and healthcare are slowly but steadily improving - because free ppl WANT health and education even more than a bureaucrat does.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>somalia can't be put down to liberty
Modern Somalia is an anarchy. If you want to see the closest thing to an unregulated market, move over there. Watch as warlords, religious factions, and zealots have taken over in place of government regulation. Then wonder in amazement at how despite having the most possible liberty in the world, every Somali has actually zero liberty because there is no protection and enforcement of that liberty.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest again... a republic follows laws. a free market has certain laws and regulations. the type that are friendly to consumers and businesses, which will ensure economic growth.
a place where there is no law in the market and out does not encourage consumers, since there is absolutely no social contract - as u said, an anarchy.
but in the midst of the anarchy, there is individual responsibility. hospitals and schools are being built. that's libertarianism
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>a place where there is no law in the market and out does not encourage consumers, since there is absolutely no social contract - as u said, an anarchy
That's what a free market is. God, you're so stupid for not even knowing the meaning of the jargon you use.
>>hospitals and schools are being built. that's libertarianism
Libertarianism is about property. Capitalism is about profit. Schools and hospitals are non-profit institutions. When they are for-profit, they screw up.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest you've been conditioned to believe that businessmen and property owners are a certain class of society. the fact is that everyone is a businessman of some form, offering goods and services for money. an employeee is doing business with his employer as much as he is with the customer. it is thus in te interest of all men to a)make profit and b)ensure the gen well-being of their consumer base. thus the republic has to follow laws outside of the marketplace which protect life and property.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>you've been conditioned
It's not conditioning, it is fact. Look at the statistics for wealth distribution. Jesus Christ you're such a loyal tool.
>>an employeee is doing business with his employer as much as he is with the customer
No he isn't. The Employer is at an advantage: he doesn't NEED that single employee and many want to replace him. The employee needs the job for survival.
>>give people morality
Idiot. I said it ENFORCES morality. It ENFORCES the moral consensus.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest the present wealth distribution came because of the neo-cons and their corporatism. look at america b4 the fed took over it all. look at the america of the founding father's day. it was hard work, but the nation prospered. now, in spite of the wealth accumulated in certain banks, the nation is bankrupt. however, if you allow the rich to come back and invest their money in the country again, everyone will once again have a shot at earning a living instead of collecting unemployment cheques
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>look at america b4 the fed took over it all
You mean the age of robber-barons who bought cities and forced their employees to live restricted lives in them? The age of men who corrupted government like today as people died in streets?
>>look at the america of the founding father's day
You mean the day when only white property owners could vote? The age of aristocracy?
>>the nation is bankrupt
We're bankrupt because taxes are so low, two wars, and a housing bubble.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest you'll find most of the corporatism started with the robber-barons, who later bought banks and now get bailed out to get richer while the poor get poorer.
i was talking about the wealth distribution of the founding fathers day, as you well know. we've already discussed the imperfections of justice for all during those times.
you call 1/3rd tax LOW??
and the housing bubble n the wars are what the aus.eco.s warned AGAINST. the incumbent theories are what led to this mess.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>you call 1/3rd tax LOW??
Yes. 35% tax (the rich pay 15% actually) is the lowest rate income tax has been in 60 years. It used to be 70 to 80% taxes, from the 50s to the 80s. This was also America's golden age.
>>aus.eco.s warned AGAINST
They are a fringe school that does not use scientific rigor. Their warnings are the equivalent of a man yelling on the street, I.E. once in a blue moon he gets it right. Neokeynesian economics is actual, serious economics.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest those high taxes were riddled with loopholes to wipe out credit card interest, and all in all, lower your individual takes. when regan took office, he lowered taxes, and wiped out these loopholes, which meant the gvmt's income actually rose.
that period was america's golden age for reasons other than those pseudo taxes. look it up.
aus eco makes few predictions. like most economics, it deals primarily with cause and effect. your analogy make no sense and amounts, once again, to slander.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>when regan took office, he lowered taxes, and wiped out these loopholes
He lowered taxes dramatically and deregulated the system. He also introduced the idea that giving the richest 1% billions of dollars would benefit everyone (it doesn't). He never closed loopholes.
>>your analogy make no sense
Austrian economics is about eliminating the state and hoping that unregulated capitalism solves everything. That is why it predicts doom for us all the time. We use nothing like it.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest i didn't claim regan was perfect. i was merely pointed out the fallacy in your argument that higher taxes is what caused the golden age.
austrian economics suggests a different policy, its true. but not one of anarchy, but rather, what the founders suggested. and their predictions have nothing to do with that world. their predictions are made regarding the present world, based on present policy. so their predictions are very precise - not in time - but in direct cause and effect.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>painfully false
It's so false that you want to end the FDA and the Civil Rights Act. Could you be more out of touch?
>>in that they both have followers
Cult leaders require severe sacrifices designed to make their followers dependent upon them.
>>the fda can be bribed
It can, but we tightly regulate it to punish this. A free market has no laws against bribery.
>>higher taxes is what caused
I never said it did. It contrasts the false claims of republicans and high taxes.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest no one wants to end the fda and civil rights act. the act is good. it ought to remain. only title2 sets a precedent for gvmt abuse like the patriot act. the fda could be phased out n put in the hands of the ppl. which, if you really mean what you say, is who the gvmt is suppossed to represent, so it shouldn't make a difference.
a free market is subject to the moral laws of the land, as i've explained b4.
u did say, taxes were 80% in golden age.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@kDest with regard to what republicans say...
repubs, dems n tea's are all infiltrated by neo-cons.
but yes, taft n goldwater were repubs n many of them like ron paul, r calling for a lowering of taxes, for the simple reason that they believe that when the money is with the ppl, it is spent in the right way. expecting bureaucrats to know wat ppl want n then subsidize those products is wasteful policy.
n wen taxes were high on paper, ppl were keeping their money. so it does prove my point.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>repubs, dems n tea's are all infiltrated by neo-cons
No. Democrats are aligned with media, copyright, and insurance agency interests. Republicans are aligned with religious, plutocratic, oil and business interests. The Tea party is just a political front for the Koch Brothers plus some religious demagoguery.
>>subsidize those products
Subsidizing serves public interest usually. It's what gives us safe medicine for example.
>>taxes were high
We never risked defaulting then.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest subsidizing products serves a few companies, n tips the scales n their favour, thus eliminating the competitiveness of capitalism which serves the public by lowering prices n increasing innovation.
as ron paul says, we default all the time, because we are taking ppl's money, spending it on things ppl don't want, and then printing more money, thus reducing the value of their savings.
by living within our means, we create a stronger economy.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>competitiveness of capitalism which serves the public by lowering prices
In the case of medicine this means false advertising of safety, no safety testing, and using what is most immediately useful with no sight of future consequences. This is why we subsidize research. Capitalism only pursues profit, not the public good.
>>we default all the time
We have a AAA credit rating which will dip to B status after default.
>>living within our means
Code for weakening the poor.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest jesus' followers were not dependant on him for any physical need, which is what you're implying. furthermore, the new testament clearly teachhes that husbands are to love their wives... so hating one's family is not a prerequisite to following christ. the verse clearly refers to priority, unless you happen to be on the lookout to slander someone.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>but not one of anarchy
Look, I'm tired of this false statement. You are uneducated and gullible. Do yourself a favor and read Mises, and follow its followers. You will find that Austrian Economics is the cornerstone of the anarcho-capitalists.
>>so their predictions are very precise
Actually not. Deregulating pollution, factories, etc. would not bring us paradise. It would bring us unsafe factories and rivers that burst into flame again. Their social predictions are wrong.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest anyone with half a brain could see the negative consequences of anarchy. and, as the world recognizes, even if you don't, mises n hayek were extremely smart. the 'anarchy' you refer to is merely an extremely limited social contract, where non-coercian was applied to all men. however, the fact that non-coercian was applied to all men itself inherently implies that there is a form of law that is made known to the public, which is not the conventional understanding of the term, 'anarchy'.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>anyone with half a brain could see the negative consequences of anarchy
And yet we have Mises who fight for the cause of abolishing the state, and use Somalia to argue that anarchy improves economic productivity and the standard of living.
>>no one wants to end the fda and civil rights act
Libertarians do. Try again.
>>so it shouldn't make a difference
Of course it makes a difference. Business is not as accountable as government, and is for-profit. This is bad for safety.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest replied to all these allegations in other posts. some of them in the previous post.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@kDest a customer doesn't HAVE to buy stuff from te store (which the store owner has already bought and paid for). the owner needs the customer to buy something so that his business can survive.
everyone's a businessman in some form. offering goods and services for money.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>a customer doesn't HAVE to buy stuff from te store
Unless of course it's a monopoly, or sold the person proprietary technology before that can only be repaired by the manufacturer. There are all sorts of ways business guarantee you have no choice.
>>ron paul approve of laws that serve to protect children
That's why he stuttered and panicked, and changed the topic, on the CNN republican debate when asked if an immigrant child should receive medical care in a hospital.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest similarily, an employee can have unique combos of skills or may patent an innovation to ensure HE stays in business wid his employer.
he said an immigrant child that receives care by stealing from hardworking legal, tax-paying citizens, is wrong. this is a fact. however, he has, on numerous occasions, pointed to only a few yrs ago, when charity hospitals that treated for free wern't squeezed out by America, where people in need could go and receive fair treatment.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>the welfare state is obviously not a good idea, since it isn't solvent
It isn't solvent because the rich are not being taxed sufficiently, and there are not high tariffs on imported goods which means they move all our jobs overseas. Libertarians fight to keep our nation in debt, by lowering taxes, as part of a cynical ploy to have us cut social welfare programs. This would have disastrous social consequences, but they simply don't care. They only care about property rights.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest wow, you've really got your head screwed on backwards, havn't you? do you think businesses go oversees coz they trust foreigners more than their countrymen? or coz of some reverse racial bias? or perhaps coz they enjoy transport and communication problems?
all things being equal, American companies would prefer American workers. its the system that discourages profit and job creation. remove the taxes and the money comes home, and invested again by ppl who know how to make a profit.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>do you think businesses go oversees
Businesses go overseas because the managers are only concerned with profit. They have no empathy, or morality which governs their decisions. That is what capitalism is: a system that promotes the most profit-driven businesses. Not the most moral, or empathetic. What's great about sending jobs overseas is, they can pay workers a dollar a day, and dump their waste directly into the rivers without any laws against this. You want this for us.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest facts of life: all life has struggle. its also good for you. 'don't help butterflies out of their cocoons.. etc'
business is all about profit. this is why an economist makes a good leader. eg: indian prime minister.
morals and empathy come from people. ppl who run the business or its patrons. hence company policy, boycotts.. etc.
dumping toxic waste is illegal everywhere. it's called international law.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>morals and empathy come from people
Something actually right.
>>ppl who run the business or its patrons
Wrong. Random example, Cocoa slavery.
>>dumping toxic waste is illegal everywhere
The developing world often has lax environmental laws. That's why in China for example, some lands are completely polluted by heavy metals and compounds associated with semiconductor manufacture. It's the same in all sorts of nations, with tainted water supplies and bad ecologies.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest ? people may CHOOSE not to apply their morals, but it doesn;t change the fact that the onus is on tem, not the legislature.
>> lax environmental laws.
agreed. but american companies can be sued in america or in the world court for harming people in another country. so it's not the avoidance of responsibility tat drives them away, but rather the red tape and the massive taxation which largely goes to fund illegal (under the american constitution) wars.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>but it doesn;t change the fact that the onus is on tem, not the legislature
The purpose of government is to impose a certain morality onto the population, especially the rich and powerful, in the form of ethics and law. We cannot trust business to behave morally.
>>can be sued
If it happens in another country, it falls under the jurisdiction of that country. That's why Nike can use child labor and sweatshops. We cannot sue them because it is legal in China, Vietnam, etc.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest nike, etc.. can be boycotted in america, another point i was trying to make with the racial discrimination argument. also, their owners n execs can be sued in america for violating international norms for treatment of workers. you'll find that businesses want to help america, but this all or none attitude of the federal gvmt prevents them from even doing a little bit. meanwhile, the welfare state attracts illegals to take away american jobs, furter killing the economy.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>nike, etc.. can be boycotted in america
Except they aren't to any great effect. Gee, I wonder why? Oh, maybe because they are rich and buy very powerful propaganda to enhance their public image here. Also, it's really hard to make people care about what happens 10000 miles away.
>>violating international norms
No, not norms. Laws. In other words, we could only sue them if there were international laws against child labor. Freaking duh. Yet you oppose these laws.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest so you agree that certain things can't be fought with mere law, but has to be fought in the minds and hearts of people across the globe. (and it is happening).
and as i've mentioned, libertarians support laws that protect children.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>you'll find that businesses want to help america
No. they want to help themselves. That's why they moved all our jobs overseas. We have high standards for our workers, they chose to avoid those standards and employ people they can pay nothing, abuse, and dump waste on.
>>prevents them
Their callous greed prevents them from seeing that they could pay a good wage, sell at a fair price, and still make a profit ethically. They are mostly monsters, with really good propaganda.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest >>They are mostly monsters
right. and here i was taking you seriously. you'r argument mostly consists of name calling and demanding that the world follow your ideas of fairness. this is pubescent behavior. libertarianism isn't some idea that we wish people would believe in. it's real. all men ARE free to believe whatever they want to believe. you can't demand they do your bidding unless you convince them to. libertarianism is merely a call to reflect this fact in our legislature.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>so it's not the avoidance of responsibility tat drives them away
Dumbass. Our laws do not apply to China. Think before you speak.
>>its a moot point
So your answer is no, and thus you must accept that libertarianism leads to slavery when people think of classes of people as inferior.
>>in the present day, it wouldnt b.
Slavery still exists in industrialized nations in the form of human trafficking, and in Africa in the form of kidnapping and exploitation.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest child labour happens because people are hungry. in any place, a chiild would rather be learning than workingto survive. solving te economic problems of the region by providing greater access to modern technology and education would solve child labour better than any law.
a libertarian would never condone a person crying out for freedom and being silenced. regardless of what their owners thought of him.
i didn't say industrialized nations, i said educated and informed populations.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>would solve child labour better than any law
QUIT TYPING STUPID STATEMENTS AND READ A FREAKING HISTORY BOOK. Child labor WAS NOT ENDED BY MARKET DEMAND. It was ended through enforcement of new laws outlawing child labor, and MANDATING EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN.
>>a libertarian would never condone a person crying out for freedom and being silenced
Of course they would. What do you think happened to the early formation of unions? Libertarian businessmen hired men to shoot them.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest 1stly, you'll find that libertarians like ron paul approve of laws that serve to protect children. it's the adults who, they believe, should be free to make their own informed choices.
second, i didn't say that the market ended child labour, i said that its an economic problem as much as it is a social one. thus, if you eliminate the demand for child labour, i.e. increase the prosperity of te nation - by providing night school options and better sanitation 4 the ppl, you'll help end it.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>increase the prosperity of te nation
It doesn't work that way. Child labor is a very desirable commodity. The more prosperous a nation is, the greater the demand for children.
>>a 'christian' who butchers a hundred people
Would be acting out god's teachings.
>>a 'libertarian' who restricts a person's civil liberties
Is only pursuing his self-interest on his property, which in libertarian priorities is more important than life or social welfare. He is a model libertarian.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest by prosperity of te nation, i refer to the ppl of the nation.
and you'l find tht most children, if they DIDN't have to work to eat, WOULD rather go to school, regardless of the demand from employers.
actually, he wouldn't be acting out of christ's teachings. does your senseless slander ooze everywhere?
read ron paul's explanation of liberty before u decide u know what your talking about. i agree, a libertarian like you would be a terrible neighbour, coz you have no respect for fellow man.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>he wouldn't be acting out of christ's teachings
Christ tells you to hate your family. The biblical god praises genocide.
>>coz you have no respect for fellow man
Libertarians only care about themselves. They want to benefit from civil society and infrastructure but refuse to pay for it. They mooch off of society, off of everyone else's work and pretend to not owe society anything.
>>if it happened on the employer's property
He would claim they coerced and get off free.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest he tell ppl to hate their family and life if they want to come to hhim n be his disciple, because no oter obligation can stand in the way. however, being Jesus' disciple denotes non-violence and a life devoted to glorifying God and tolerating public abuse for it.
quite the opposite of wat u imply.
since you cannot comprehend that responsibility is an integral part of liberty, it's no wonder that you are so biased against freedom.
>claim 'coerced' n get free
which law school did YOU go to?
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>quite the opposite of wat u imply
However you whitewash it, his teachings are identical to how cult leaders behave.
>>responsibility is an integral part of liberty
Not according to libertarians. Their rhetoric is that we should just make every negative thing legal and let nature take its course.
>>you are so biased against freedom
Please. Try another canard. Being segregated or poisoned is not freedom.
>>which law school did YOU go to?
Reality University. Go Atomic Newtons!
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest really? you learned that claiming 'they coerced' would get one off SCOT FREE in REALITY university?
u'll find your comments like 'selling tainted food is freedom' betrays a -ve bias against freedom.
your latest slander regarding responsibility is so painfully false that i won't bother opposing it.
Jesus' teachings like a cult leader? in that they both have followers who make sacrifices? wow. you should be an investigative journalist. for a tabloid.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>you learned that claiming 'they coerced'
When there is a confrontation, and the only witnesses are the perpetrator and the victim, it is essentially your word against his. Since we're talking about landowners, we're talking about a wealthy perpetrator and a victim who could be poor, or working class, in other words a person who has no money to bribe or pressure the investigations. A landowner on the other hand can probably afford to pressure his investigators or bribe them.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest your argument reflects a misconception of the human soul. you assume that anyone who has money can bribe anyone else. not true. there are plenty of ppl of strong moral fibre, who simply cannot be bought and will follow their innate sense of justice in making decisions. the legal system attempts to identify those men and make them judges. with more information, corrupt judges are discovered and impeached easier.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>there are plenty of ppl of strong moral fibre
Only a fool bases a society on the hope that there will be enough good men to make it work. A wise person makes their society hard to corrupt proactively.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest you're trying to regulate ppl's humanity! even eugenists n communists n dictators had speeches on how their way would make a more efficient society, but they didn't take into account the intangible needs of man, like freedom, since it was not a very important part of educated discussion.
and what ppl like mises fought for was not a political theory of anarchy, as ive pointed out earlier, but rather, to bring these issues into the realm of political policy.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlanMathewPolson
>>you're trying to regulate ppl's humanity!
Every enforced freedom has a cost that negates another class of freedom. Free speech negates freedom from offense and free access to reliable information. Free religion negates freedom from its social effects on society. Unregulated markets negate our freedom to reliably safe products.
>>intangible needs of man, like freedom
Case in point, your concept of freedom negates my political and workspace freedom. You know nothing.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest a 'christian' who butchers a hundred people can't be said to be following the teachings of christ, who was a man of peace. e probably just assumed the christian label to blend in with society. similarly, a 'libertarian' who restricts a person's civil liberties can hardly be called a libertarian.
at the same time, you must consider what methods some union workers use to coerce their bosses. tat is unlibertarian as well, though the simple formation of a union isnt.
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>what methods some union workers use to coerce their bosses
In libertarian semantics, when an employer hires armed men to shoot employees, it is self defense because it happened on employer property which means that the employees forfeit all rights there and automatically are the aggressors if they do not to submit to the employer. If the union workers band together and protest, they are the aggressors because they deprive the employer of his property (rightful profits).
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest if it happened outside the workplace, it would be murder, and the law would put the murderer and the conspirator behind bars. if it happened on the employer's property, it would land him in worse trouble, coz the knife cuts both ways. sure, the employees have to follow the employer's rules on his property, but they also sign a contract, making the employer responsible for their safety.
>>forfeit all rights
what part of unalienable rights do you not understand?
AlanMathewPolson 7 months ago
@AlanMathewPolson
>>what part of unalienable rights do you not understand
In libertarian dogma, all rights are subordinate to property. Free speech? Life? Liberty? It all ends when you enter someone's property. They can imagine that you "initiated force" and shoot you dead. Or they can censor your free speech. Or they can have you sign a contract that makes you a slave. It's all FREEDOM (actually lack thereof, but what do you care about details, you're a moron who never reads a book).
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest once again, you lose sight of te responsibility of freedom.
when a person infringes on your freedom, or your property, you don't shoot them dead. you call the law, and they follow proper procedure to prosecute the alleged offender while still respecting his unalienable rights.
freedom to own a gun doesnt mean you won't still go to