If you think about it, its not about the whites, its not about the blacks, its not about the jews, its not about the italians, etc. Its about the government subsidizing these problems for their own benefit!
I remember being taught to hate discrimination in school and resisting it on liberal instinct even then. But I have always hated black people soooooo......
"Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man." - Martin Luther King Jr.
@AboveAllNations Property has no meaning unless it is owned by an individual. It is defined as that which a single person, bearing the faculty of happiness and reason, has a right to. It is meant to serve one man, and his desire for peace with other men.
I used to think that racism was just plain wrong but I find it maybe a pragmatic tool, depending on the circumstances. For example, if you were a white taxi driver in the Big Apple, and there were two customers, one white and the other black. Under that law you can't discriminate but with the repeal you can. As for the reason, that driver may know that statistically blacks commit more crimes than whites. Yes, not all blacks commit crimes but do you KNOW that PARTICULAR person? (cont.)
(cont.) When you invite a person in your car, you are RISKING your LIFE so by choosing the white person, the driver reduces his CHANCES of becoming a victim. So by discriminating, the driver is forcing black customers to force other blacks to not commit crimes, which can explain all of these 'black' cites, like Compton, CA. Thus, this repeal may lower the CRIME RATE and race relations can improve. So, using Woodrow Wilson's adage "War to end all wars", I say RACISM TO END ALL RACISM.
"The true commitment, or the test of one's commitment to freedom of association, doesn't come when he allows people to be free to associate in the manner in which he deems ok. The true test of one's commitment to freedom of association is when you allow people to associate in ways you find offensive, that you find personally offensive."
Store owners reserve their own right to discriminate & serve- provided they have customers to discriminate. You urself have ur own right to discriminate & purchase provided u have enough money to do so
Employers have the right to discriminate for potential employees- provided he can find potential employees. Employees have the right to discriminate for which employer they wish to work for- provided he has the skills & abilities to be able to do so.
@swu880 So lots of things there. 1) I feel the language of "rights" is too abstract to be of very much practical value. Plus they can be taken away. 2) Seriously, have YOU read Adam Smith? That guy furnishes some good arguments for things like taxes and anti-trust legislation. 3) I stick as much as possible to primary documents in my readings of history, along with classics. I try to understand people of opposing views as they understand themselves. Doesn't seem like you share that view.
Yet a private supermarket remains far more accessible than any public school. You have NO FUCKING RIGHT TO ANOTHER'S property! Government has NO FUCKING RIGHT TO MY OR YOUR property. u do have a right to govt services- hence why they must be able to be universally applicable. Govt programs can NOT be subject to one group over another. To do so is to invite corruption & moral hazard into the scheme.
THAT is the fundamental characteristic of a free market- it must be free. -free from force. So if any company had a "monopoly" on an entire market, then his profits remain insecure. It is secure away from politicians & thieves. However, in order to maintain those current levels of revenue, company must produce something rather desirable. If company fails to do so, it may lose customers & or quantity demanded. And competitors may come in & beat him. Show me an example otherwise.
I challenge u to point out a long lasting monopoly that did not rely on government intervention(subsidies, regulations, licensing, restrictions, tarriffs,etc).
Moreover, i shall enhance the challenge, After u find such a store or company, tell me just how "secure" is their so called "markethold". lolol
Theres a reason why no monopoly can ever last a long time- maybe at most 1 or 2 years or so. Cuz its a fuckin free market! people may both enter & exit freely
It was the capitalism of the 1800s which brought us out of poverty as entrepreneurs & inventors developed capital goods & improved productivity. If it was just greed then you really think people just became greedy during the 1800s? how about a few years before then? And how come greed tends to occur in cyclical fashions as keynsians/statists/leftists try to blame capitalism for the buisiness cycles?
Leftists/statists/marxists typically are very uneducated "feel gooders" who have never even taken any economics course before or understood real economic history. They often hold statism or marxism as their religion & blindly condemn the voluntary exchanges of the free market as being evil & wrought with "greed" although they themselves are very greedy. Yet greed itself can never explain how people were able to be lifted out of poverty & how a middle class was able to develop & form
By no counts is life ever 'fair'. there is a difference between mutual benefit & fairness. The latter implies someone must decide "what is fair"- & typically u dont get much of a say in that. Mutual benefit though is the result of mutually voluntary transactions- its the very breath of a free market economy. It is the entrepreneurs seeking their own self interest who were able to improve the lot of the ordinary person.
Everyone understood that pretty much what was expected was: if u lucky enough to survive ur own birth, u would squander around in filth & real poverty for a couple years then u just die. thats it!
There is absolutely nothing fascinating about the causes of poverty. What is truly fascinating is how wealth comes about. hence why Adam Smith's book is called "an inquiry into the wealth of nations" and NOT an "inquiry into poverty". & i encourage u to read Smith's book.
In no instance is there anything fair about life? the very fact that u aint suffering backbreaking labor 24/7 & living on meager sustinence is proof of that fact! Throughout the majority of human history, for millenniums, guess what everyone was pitifully poor. Yet u will not find a soul in the 11th century who was protesting poverty or going on a hunger strike- why? well EVERYONE was pretty much poor. so much for equality.
If preferences were not transitive, this is what would happen:
Joe likes Bananas to apples --> apples to oranges --> oranges to Bananas... and so we have a circular list of "equal preferences". What that means is basically u get into a store and u will never ever be able to choose anything!
But in fact, preferences and values and cultures are never equal! This is one of the foundational concepts of economics- each person has his own set of subjective preferences and all preferences are transitive.
Now what does this mean? well lets look at our good friend Joe here. Now Joe likes Bananas to apples. -->apples to oranges --> and oranges to grapes. So Joe tends to favor Bananas and consequentially the banana industry far more than he does the grape, apple & orange industries!
Everyone discriminates one way or another- if we didn't discriminate, we could never choose! you could never choose between apples, bannanas, corn, potatos and oranges if you thought all foods were equal. just think about it- discrimination is merely one's own preferences for something. If no one had any preferences, then no one can ever make any decision whatsoever- he could hardly breathe hardly eat, hardly sleep cuz all choices are "equal".
@swu880 Also, I'd point out that your property rights are themselves a privilege. It only seems like they're not because you live in a prosperous, relatively stable country that got that way by following the wisdom of certain Enlightenment thinkers, and then working out the ramifications on ever more inclusive scales. The Civil Rights Act was part of that project. The point is material prosperity, not defending the ill-defined abstract concept of "freedom."
uh- also please study real history not the leftitst indoctrination u get at state sponsored 'schools'. Please read the "Politically Incorrect guide to American History" and "33 questions about American History you are not supposed to ask"
civil rights act really does nothing for civil liberties as a whole. nor did the unions. hell u dont really even understand the fundamental nature or the root source of freedom!
If u find the buisiness so distasteful, then simply dont buy from there. Likewise, should i find u distasteful, i choose not to serve u. Dont fuckin go cry to the cops one way or another and respect my damn property rights. Its a privilege i let u in my store in the first place not a god damn right!
@swu880 "its a violation of the very notion of freedom to introduce force and coercion. " Right, and that should include arbitrarily forcing anybody out of a local market (think beyond retail stores here...). Discrimination impedes the functioning of free markets. And the private sector, insofar as it adheres to the rules of free-market capitalism suggested by foundational thinkers like Adam Smith, does have to be fair. (Btw, "public sphere" is different from "public sector.")
public sector is the very misleading name given to govt. A more accurate name would be- "The gang of thieves, liars, murderers & sexual predators who rely on force & coercion".
And public sphere is also highly misleading- i let u in my store- thats a privilege. Going into a so called public school or a public courthouse should be a right - though govt in all its propaganda have totally confused these two concepts.
When you buy clothes at a local department store, do you also buy an equal amount from say walmart or target or in JCPenny? NO! The private voluntary sector is mutually beneficial- this does not mean it is equal for all. on no accounts is this true- ever! that would be entirely nonsensical. And thus so is the converse entirely nonsensical that i can not charge different prices in order to offer various incentives for my business.
"Ladies discount" encourages more women into my buisiness and other customers who like to meet & associate with women. Yet that is misconstrued by politicians & leftists as being "unfair"- no one in the private sector has to be "fair"! Are u fair in ur support of a burger joint when u go to eat at a restaurant? When u choose to eat at Wendy's or Burger King, are you fair to Mcdonalds, and other local restaurants? do u offer the exact same patronage & demand for service?
In the voluntary private sector, individuals choose what buisinesses they wish to associate and not associate with. likewise, buisinesses can also choose whom to associate & not associate with. It is mutually consenting & voluntary- thus the exchange is made mutually beneficial! in private sector, i can favor serving hot girls by allowing a special price for women- say "ladies discount" - but govt can never constitutionally do such a thing
Government is totally different. govt is based upon force & coercion- theres no real voluntary exchange. To the extent that govt is necessary in a free society, that being very little, it must be universally applicable and thus it holds no rod of discrimination only that of universal equality under the law & its services rendered universally equally available
Govt has totally flipped these 2 concepts on their head and confused the voluntary sector with the corrupt sector that is govt
Likewise i do not dictate to u whom u should & should not serve. EVERYTHING in the free market must be voluntary- if there be force or coercion, how the fuck is that free? its a violation of the very notion of freedom to introduce force and coercion. Should i not be willing to serve say those taller than 6' or those wearing blue shirts- that remains solely MY choice why? cuz my labor is mine not urs unless you are in the buisiness of promoting slavery
Property rights say that you own your own property. No one else owns your own property. And you being the owner of your own property have the right to discern & DISCRIMINATE in your choice of how to allocate your property how to use your property. Now then, just cuz i allow people into my buisiness hardly gives u the right to say WHOM I SHOULD SERVE. Only i have the right to say whom i should serve cuz my work, my labor, my skills my time & my resources are MINE not urs!
Using KKK as a model of acceptable discrimination is...well, self-explanatory in some respects. Otherwise, the practical outcome of allowing discrimination as described here will be further segregation of society along arbitrary lines. Also it presents a scenario where, since freedom to discriminate is not guaranteed by law, I may choose to ignore someone's attempt to discriminate against me, incurring a conflict requiring legal mediation. Not super practical.
well freedom to discriminate = freedom to choose. discriminating by race, by sex by height, by pants size, etc - all those are merely criteria for the discrimination or choice
@swu880 Right, discrimination is a TYPE of choice. The law draws a line at arbitrary discrimination in the marketplace (to the extent that it can) partly to ensure lawful free-market competition (imagine a contractor shut out of a local industry because a supplier refuses to sell to him.) The marketplace is, whether we like it or not, a PUBLIC sphere of intersecting private interests, one whose activity has social repercussions in a way that your decision to marry somebody does not. cont...
@swu880 ... The other important point is that the law isn't infringing on your right to discriminate, only to act on it within a properly public context, such as the marketplace, electoral office, civil service, public education, healthcare etc. The maintenance of public order depends, in part, on these guarantees. Punishing racist attitudes doesn't even enter into it, practically speaking. In any case, most true-blue racists live angry, fearful lives; that's it's own punishment, I think.
Understand there is a difference between the public sector- or more accurately Goverenment vs the private voluntary sector. Firstly govt has absolutely no right of privacy or any form of property rights. The private voluntary sector though is the sector where you and i live. in that sector we have inalienable property righs.
"an agnostic places God outside of human comprehnsion.
Thus, they remove God from the Natural world. Then, to define God in anyway is to attach God to the natural world, so God must remain undefined and without a quality to remain supernatural.
So if God has no qualities, is undefined, and is completely outside of the natural world or natural definition, then God really doesnt matter...
Thus, Agnostisism really doesnt matter, or all agnostics are rationally atheists, to be relevant. "
Thanks Walter E. Williams. I support your reasoning.
I wonder what you think about public college, and census documents asking about race? Do you think this should be included? Is it against our constitution?
bullcrap. Women and minorities only use it as a tool these days, and white males face far more discrimination as a result of the employers fears of tangling with their support groups. Case and example:
While i was employed at Shaw Industries, a women was called to do my job to eliminate my overtime. She ran out of printer paper, let the job fail. She was not even warned, I was. I was told that she was a woman, that I needed to carry her some paper boxes
@AntiTrollGoesSmack "We" didn't agree that Jesus's color was not mentioned...."feet of bronze" is not olive or white..And check out the Nicene conference...actually there were two of them...both conferences made numerous changes to the Bible...It's called research you idiot....do some...
@AntiTrollGoesSmack The defense of slavery is not on this vid....but williams has defended slavery ...And the fact that he opens this vid with a defense of the racist rant by rand paul tells me that williams is nothing but a useless uncle tom....
@AntiTrollGoesSmack Why can't you address the point instead of playing with yourself..??? williams defended slavery and he defended rand paul....end of story...ok Adolf....damm you're stupid...
@AntiTrollGoesSmack No supposing ...Jesus was Black and that makes a big difference in the mental outlook that Black people have on themselves....That's why the Bible was altered and that's why Jesus was painted white....so it would be easier to control the Black race.....and quiet as it's kept...others races as well...This point is pretty easy to understand....are you a fucking retard...???
@freein2339 With the way you treat people and this subject along with all of your vile name calling, i doubt you have any real belief in the Bible anyway, so why would does this it matter to you anyway?
He was a Nazerene,he looked like a middle eastern,not a european,or african. But no matter where people are from, their artists will always paint him to resemble that culture. The Bible never mentions what color he was, it's not important to God
@ricadrew That all sounds very poetic but there is a reason why the true race of Jesus was altered..And the Bible does mention it ..you just don't like the facts..You have to remember that the original Jews were not "Jews" in today's context..There were African people that were forced out of their land...sound familiar.? it is unteresting that you have no problem with Jesus being white or "off-white" but as soon as the facts of him being Black are presented you say that he's a btight light.
@freein2339 LOL, I didn't write a poem, i wrote the truth according to the Bible. Really, it says Gods a bright light that you can't even look at. It also says the Word became flesh, but it never mentions a color. But if you really need him to be black, ok, i've no problem with that. Heck, maybe Nazerenes were black, i wasn't there, so who knows. I've read the Bible front to back and i've not read what you claim. I could've missed it though, so tell me where in the Bible those things are, ok?
@freein2339 Don't know how to make it more clear, no, I have no problem with Jesus being black. He is the Lord in any skin color.
But i honestly believe it's about the last thing he wants anyone to focus on, but because of people exploiting the race thing, i do understand why for some this becomes important.
It's funny though, even my daughter (she's bi-racial) needed to point out that Jesus looks more like her than me. That required a long "it doesn't matter" talk, LOL.
@AntiTrollGoesSmack I agree, an opiate for the masses. Also, if one can believe one religion on faith, one must believe all the other ones, and everything else that can be hypothesized on faith, there would be no need for science. But common sense shows this would be suicidal, how would we create better computers, technology, cars, etc. ?
People do let their lives decay, dreaming of some unsure valhalla afterwards, instead of making the most of the life they know they have now.
@CaptainVideo890 just because they weren't parading around the masses of bible thumpers yelling in their face, I don't believe your fairy tales, doesn't mean they were not atheists.
@CaptainVideo890 If you are religious and you don't believe in Santa Claus, then you are a hypocrite. If not, good for you for having some reason left.
@CaptainVideo890 Well then it's arbitrary preference, or prejudice, or lack of logic. If you believe one thing on faith, you have to believe everything on faith. They all equally have a lack of evidence to be proved truth scientifically, but the religious mind doesn't require proof, just faith. So believe everything on faith, and if you can do that then you don't need science at all. But reality would prove otherwise, since the computer u r using right now is a product of science and not faith.
@rockhardxrocker Why does everybody say that? That's very poorly thought out. Basically what you're saying is "If you believe 'A Brief History of Time' is true, you believe books are true, so you must believe 'Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health' is true."
@CaptainVideo890 Science is a way of thinking to access the truth. Books are a medium to communicate a message. Books are not a way of thinking, since many different books are very different from one another.
But religion, like all religions, rely on faith.
See you obviously have flawed logic, like all retards and religious people.
@rockhardxrocker Here's an even more apt example, since a science book is sort of in the wrong sphere. How about "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" versus "The Gospel According to Mark"? Both are biased first person accounts of happenings that the author wanted people to know about, and yet I'm guessing you only believe one?
@CaptainVideo890 I haven't read either, but don't try to spin science off as another religion requiring faith and belief. Science justifies itself with evidence. It's really stupid when people try to claim atheism is just one of the many other religions. That's like saying science is a religious, which is obviously untrue-- because science is true.
@rockhardxrocker When did I "spin science"? That's the entire reason I corrected myself. You really are a terrible person, saying things like, "See you obviously have flawed logic, like all retards and religious people." Not even true, BTW.
@rockhardxrocker Atheism is merely a belief, and therefore a matter of faith (As such a thing cannot be proven or disproven to human faculties). As far as evidence is concerned, agnosticism is the correct path.
So anyway, nothing can be proven, NOTHING! Things can only be disproven, via the scientific method.
When things go on long enough without being disproven, they are theories, and then laws, but even laws are never "proven", they can still one day be disproven though.
Atheism does not rely on faith. Science is not the same as religion. Atheism is not another religion.
If you believe in one god, you have to believe in them all, and even Santa Claus
@rockhardxrocker I did not call Atheism a religion, but a belief. And it is hardly scientific, as it's main standing point cannot be proven or disproven. As far as science is concerned, agnosticism is the only correct path. Whether or not you want to believe is a personal preference.
@ricadrew Jesus was Black Adolf....deal woth it...And do the research and stop believing all the hype...And by the way....bronze is much darker than olive.....
@freein2339 I don't care if he's olive or black, or even if he turned out to be the only white middlle eastern ever to be born, but at this time, there hasn't been so your statement saying "white Jesus" stands corrected.
But now that i've read your comments to others, I see i'm mearly dealing with your everyday, standard, run-of-the-mill racist.
@ricadrew I merely state facts Adolf and of you can't deal with it then that's your problem...And you do care what color Jesus is...that's why you keep making weak excuses for you defense of a white Jesus
@freein2339 Did mommy drop you on your head? Defending a 'white Jesus"?
Obviously it's you that's in constant defence mode as you can't deal with being wrong when you claimed Jesus was white. Before you decide to reply to grownups comments on the internet, it would be a good idea to study up just a bit on what you're commenting about. For your sake i hope you really are 12 yrs old, at least you'd have an excuse for sounding so immature. You're really not racist, you're just really dumb!
@ricadrew I never claimed that Jesus was white so give that weak shit a break..The fact is Jesus was Black not some olive colored person that you claimed....got it now..??..fucking idiot...
@AntiTrollGoesSmack Who gives a fuck what you think an uncle tom is...You know damn well how I feel about uncle toms so deal with it...And yiu still didn't adress mym poinjt....useless nazi...
@AntiTrollGoesSmack Nazis hate Black people and they practice racism...That's what you are and that's what you do...Unjcle Toms like williams , sowell , elder and a few other assorted vermin defend raqcism and assholes like you....got that Adolf...??? And ytou still didn'tm address my point...guess the truth is too much for your little brain...
@AntiTrollGoesSmack Fuck you Adolf you fucking little dick nazi..This asshole is defending another useless racist asshole just like he's done most of his useless uncle tom life..And who cares where he's "from"..If clear that his mind is still on the plantation...And you and the rest of your nazi but-ties you didn't mention williams defense of slavery and racism...so go fuck a goat....
It always amazes me how the left is more than willing to reveal their racism as long as they can annoymously comment. They couldn't be more arrogant and condecsening when it comes to any minority that doesn't need their white help!
The modern version of slave owners loudly proclaim that if our slave people dare step outside the thought confines they've established for them, they're off the plantation and have become house negro's. Obviously no-one has ever owned Walter!
@freein2339 Is that what you heard? I heard a brave man defending freedom. I guess it just depends on where your head is. Mine isn't up my ass. Is yours?
@freein2339 Awww how cute. Don't get your panties in a bunch just because you're too stupid to come back with a reasoned response. After all, you're a product of the educational system that this "uncle tom" was trying to save you from.
@jamo387 I merely state facts you little dick goat fucking nazi..Williams is nothing but a useless uncle tom that is still waiting for crumbs from his slave masters table...so once again...fuck him and fuck you...
@freein2339 Facts like "little dick goat fucking nazi"? You obviously have some real writing talent there. No doubt nurtured by your grade "A" education. I don't see any facts in your half baked sentences. I do see a lot of crying and whining from someone who's probably as smart as a third grader and should look in the mirror before insulting people who are, without a doubt, superior to them in every way. I refer here to Mr. Williams of course.
@freein2339 Who is the puppet? You're the one with the reflexive "uncle tom" bullshit whenever a black man doesn't parrot the approved black opinions. You also don't argue the facts of this video. You're more interested in infantile temper tantrums. I think you need to look in the mirror and think about exactly why you hate a man who is more intelligent and reasonable than you will ever be. I'll venture a guess that narrow people like you are very afraid of a free thinker like Mr. Williams.
@jamo387 The point of the video is that uncle tom williams is defending another racist...just like he's useless punk ass has done for years...And if a Black man defends racists and racism then he is useless...just like your nazi punk ass is....fucking idiot...go fuck a goat...
@freein2339 What's with you and goat sex? And why do you have 39 posts on this page alone? Do you even have a job? Man, if ever there was someone who needed to heed Walter Williams advice it is you. You should shut your mouth and open your ears for a change, you might learn something. While you're at it,leave that damn goat alone, pervert.
@jamo387 I merely state facts Adolf and goats are more afriad of people like you then me....ain't that right...Besides being my bitch is something that you have to earn instead of counting my post like a good suck-a-terry......And williams is nothing but a useless uncle tom....
This guy is a real kook...i mean how can America be a beacon and moral force to the world, if it advocates discrimination amongst private corporations dealing in commerce....what you do in you own home is one thing, but totally unacceptable if your a local shopkeeper and want to discriminate against someone on the basis of colour,gender etc....not in a free and equal society, you dont!!
@polkarde in a free society you have the freedom to make choice, bad and good ones. If some shopkeeper is a racist, I would like to know as I don't want to make business with such folks - but if they can't show their oppinion I can't tell and will end up making business with such folks.
You as 'capital holder/consumer' are the ones that is in charge to regulated the markets, not government.
um...actually i think they do@business but at home no i don't think....thats ur property but ur business i dont knw. u could get sued by the kkk or something lol. :s
@baffledman If you allow the bigots to let themselves be known, you can refuse to patronize their businesses. Presently, a racist shopkeeper suffers no 'penalty' for his views because he is forced by government to keep such views hush hush. Remove this force, let him put up his 'no blacks' sign..then sit back and watch his business crumble. Can't think of a more satisfying and effective means of showing a racist their place.
Anti-discrimination is a doctrine that invariably results in a person or people making the worst possible decision because any other conclusion would be an act of discrimination. If the NBA was to behave in this manner I would be starting for the Lakers instead of Kobe..... wait, maybe im in favor of it.
Apparently many of those posting here are too young to remember Jim Crow laws which criminalized business owners who attempted to serve blacks in the 40's, 50's and early 60's. No rational business discriminates without some valid market based reason... like a product designed for a particular customer characteristic. Consciously turning away willing customers is something no rational business owner ever does and it's just something dreamed up by Utopians and other control freaks.
@anonymous915 Rand Paul is not racist for going against CRA, but if you see the massive inconsistencies in his positions, you will realize that no principled libertarian, and remember even a white supremacist would want to remove those aspects of CRA, if not the whole Act itself, just based on that you cannot find out whether he is libertarian or not. cont.....
Rand Paul wants private property owners to have the right to discriminate against whom they wanna let in, but at the same time he wants federal govt to prevent private property owners from hiring some individual based on his citizenship status. If govt shouldn't prevent private individuals from discriminating against individuals, then why does he support govt interference in hiring individuals based on their citizenship status?
And the gem for all those who wanna claim Rand Paul is 'principled libertarian' and not racist. This is from his website:
"I propose a moratorium on Visas from about ten rogue nations or anybody that has traveled to those nations."
If that's not racism, or like the worst form of collectivism then what is it?
Basically Rand Paul wants you to not be allowed in America, if your compatriot did something. If Ted Nugent shot someone in Europe, the EU must not allow you to enter its borders,
@nosferotica1 "If terrorists are coming into the US from Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc that's where the visas aren't going to be issued."
And how is this not racist and a contradictory viewpoint than his rest of the stance? Discriminating against one individual based on what some other individual did of the same 'class', 'caste', 'creed' or 'nation', if that's not bigotry than what is?
Immigration is a very very very shady, gray area with the Libertarians. Even I am at odds with how it should work, but what it comes down to is you need a SSN and a state ID and whatnot to get a job. You need a birth certificate to even get that shit, so if you and I need it to get a job and they are hiring illegals despite that, then they are breaking the law by hiring illegal people anyway.
@nosferotica1 As far as I know illegal immigrants are much less exploited than citizens themselves, they get paid more(because employer doesn't have to spend on health insurance and stuff), they can be hired and fired easily so they always have more jobs than the legal workers.
I don't know why is it such a gray area for god knows which Libertarians you know, I don't know any libertarian who does not also call himself a conservative who is against immigration(state sanctioned or otherwise).
@nosferotica1 The fact is as long as a private individual is willing to sell or rend them private property for any individual to live on, and there are people willing to hire them, I don't think why there should be any problem to anyone.
I mean before you ask the question what should be done with illegal aliens, shouldn't you ask 'If they really wanna come here and live an honest life why can't they simply file the required papers get in line and come in?'
Of course I do. They say "When in Rome..." but we give them every incentive in the world to come here illegally. Why don't we worry about caring for the illegals once they become legal instead of throwing more gas on the fire?
It's why "Homeland Security" is such a joke. All they did was make flying a pain in the ass.
@nosferotica1 Paperwork? Do you think all legal immigration process consists of is paperwork? 'Paperwork' is just a very small word for the hell hole current legal immigration process is. Not to mention the thousands of dollars required for it. The perks for being illegal aren't really better, its just that legal immigration sucks so bad and is so highly restricted that being illegal is so lucrative than sitting at the end of line waiting for 20 years or gathering $20,000 for everything.
Yeah, I seriously thought it was just a sheet of paper. :P Of course, the naturalization process takes time and isn't free, but people do it every day.
And the perks aren't really better? Really? They're here and we have to accommodate them, they're poor so it's typically at no cost to them, instead of learning English everything is being printed in Spanish...
I'm not inclined to agree with you, especially when they're sending all that money back home to Mexico.
@nosferotica1 "Of course, the naturalization process takes time and isn't free, but people do it every day." That doesn't mean anything, its like saying "paying taxes isn't easy and it takes time, but people do it every year, so it doesn't matter if it takes 10 forms or 1500 forms to file tax returns, people love doing it, and we don't need to do anything about it, lets just focus on what should we do about the 95% of people who should file, but do not file their taxes".
@nosferotica1 Exactly, you must understand one thing for sure, you cannot choose whether or not to have 13 million immigrants, you can only choose whether you want 13 million illegal immigrants or 13 million legal immigrants. By relaxing the immigration restrictions a lot and making only the bare minimum requirements, you will have a diverse immigrant population rather than hispanic heavy immigrant pop right now.
Google "immigration hell" and read the cracked article about 5 circles of imm hell.
How about that? The only price is the cost of travel as long as you know English and American History. You will take a history test, and before the history test there will be a casual conversation to see if you know enough of the English language to function day to day as an American.
Even foreign countries, part of the cost of citizenship was knowing their language.
If you are a father coming over to work manual labor and bring money to his family in mexico who are starving... you really think you'd take the time to learn english??
Do you think your ancestors when they came over all knew english? NO WAY! its was "Spreken zie deutsch?" @ ellis island. And if someone told them to turn around and sail back across the atlantic what do think they would have said? "Verpisst euch!"
So everyone under the sun should simply have free run of our country?
That's fantastic. No naturalization process whatsoever. Everyone come on in, WE'LL LEARN SPANISH FOR YOU so you don't have to TROUBLE YOURSELF learning the language of EVERYONE ELSE THAT LIVES HERE.
Why does everything you say have to do with the extremes? No, I think its obvious this is not a black and white issue. We could even go a step further... what gives you the right to claim moral authority on this issue when it was in fact the result of the Mexican-American War which forced these peoples ancestors to cede land?
I'm saying for some it is unreasonable. For some the stakes are too high for some arbitrary rule. Again its not black and white. Be thankful you were born here. You could have very easily been born in a rat hole in mexico or under a theocracy abroad... I doubt very much you would feel the same way/.
@renegadedivision Hm, YT seems to be having problems...sorry if this posts twice - Paul doesn't want to change the CRA either - he's made that quite clear. The Dems have blown this way out of proportion.
@anonymous915 I don't care what Rand said afterwards or anything, I care what Rand said in the interview, ideologically he says that govt shouldn't prevent private businesses and individuals from discriminating, so it doesn't matter what he says about CRA act, the truth is, he is a hypocrite, and in fact worse collectivist than most Republicans. Not many Republican leaders are that retarded to suggest "Lets not issue visas to the countries where terrorists come from."
I mean I can raise another point, 99% of the terrorists are Muslim, so why are we giving Muslims visas?(Check National Security section in issues on Rand Paul's website). On the top of that, this guy is going to drag down any rational criticism against CRA into his selective bigotry.
He's not a hypocrite. Did you listen to this video? in the 60s and 50s, it was state sanctioned. It was going on in the public sector. He said that needed to change, and in private matters the government has no business telling others what to do.
He's not a hypocrite. You heard what you wanted to hear despite what Rand actually said. The fact of the matter is it was a very unpopular thing to say, no matter how much water such an argument holds.
@nosferotica1 I am as much against CRA as Rand Paul himself claimed to be, but then both these guys, Walter E Williams and Rand Paul turn around on illegal immigration and claim that they want govt to interfere in preventing private businesses to do X, but not prevent in doing Y.
"Fair" private business practices? Even big businesses show you day in and day out they don't give a flying fuck about "fair."
You need to learn something about sin, and that's you can only sin against yourself. Many people abhor discrimination, so if a dude wants to say "white only" and risk pissing off the world, he can go broke, or just change his policy. Even then, would the free market forgive him?
What's more fair than stupidity being it's own worst enemy?
This may come as a shock to you, but the majority of the south was racist. Businesses could have easily survived excluding blacks, in fact I would not be surprised if they did better than businesses who rejected this bigotry.
This is brilliant.
If you think about it, its not about the whites, its not about the blacks, its not about the jews, its not about the italians, etc. Its about the government subsidizing these problems for their own benefit!
Jimjammajay 3 weeks ago
I remember being taught to hate discrimination in school and resisting it on liberal instinct even then. But I have always hated black people soooooo......
PrivateAckbar 1 month ago in playlist good stuff 7
"Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man." - Martin Luther King Jr.
AboveAllNations 3 months ago
@AboveAllNations Property has no meaning unless it is owned by an individual. It is defined as that which a single person, bearing the faculty of happiness and reason, has a right to. It is meant to serve one man, and his desire for peace with other men.
eggory 2 months ago
Ok Walter, you gotta nice mustache I doubt you hurt women too bad by removing yourself, from the "market" LOL this guy
Ravengaurd6 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I used to think that racism was just plain wrong but I find it maybe a pragmatic tool, depending on the circumstances. For example, if you were a white taxi driver in the Big Apple, and there were two customers, one white and the other black. Under that law you can't discriminate but with the repeal you can. As for the reason, that driver may know that statistically blacks commit more crimes than whites. Yes, not all blacks commit crimes but do you KNOW that PARTICULAR person? (cont.)
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont.) When you invite a person in your car, you are RISKING your LIFE so by choosing the white person, the driver reduces his CHANCES of becoming a victim. So by discriminating, the driver is forcing black customers to force other blacks to not commit crimes, which can explain all of these 'black' cites, like Compton, CA. Thus, this repeal may lower the CRIME RATE and race relations can improve. So, using Woodrow Wilson's adage "War to end all wars", I say RACISM TO END ALL RACISM.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
"The true commitment, or the test of one's commitment to freedom of association, doesn't come when he allows people to be free to associate in the manner in which he deems ok. The true test of one's commitment to freedom of association is when you allow people to associate in ways you find offensive, that you find personally offensive."
boxant 11 months ago 15
Store owners reserve their own right to discriminate & serve- provided they have customers to discriminate. You urself have ur own right to discriminate & purchase provided u have enough money to do so
Employers have the right to discriminate for potential employees- provided he can find potential employees. Employees have the right to discriminate for which employer they wish to work for- provided he has the skills & abilities to be able to do so.
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 So lots of things there. 1) I feel the language of "rights" is too abstract to be of very much practical value. Plus they can be taken away. 2) Seriously, have YOU read Adam Smith? That guy furnishes some good arguments for things like taxes and anti-trust legislation. 3) I stick as much as possible to primary documents in my readings of history, along with classics. I try to understand people of opposing views as they understand themselves. Doesn't seem like you share that view.
Oneiricist 1 year ago
Yet a private supermarket remains far more accessible than any public school. You have NO FUCKING RIGHT TO ANOTHER'S property! Government has NO FUCKING RIGHT TO MY OR YOUR property. u do have a right to govt services- hence why they must be able to be universally applicable. Govt programs can NOT be subject to one group over another. To do so is to invite corruption & moral hazard into the scheme.
swu880 1 year ago
it really is a trick question since the very definition & characteristic of a free market is freedom away from force, coercion & the government
swu880 1 year ago
THAT is the fundamental characteristic of a free market- it must be free. -free from force. So if any company had a "monopoly" on an entire market, then his profits remain insecure. It is secure away from politicians & thieves. However, in order to maintain those current levels of revenue, company must produce something rather desirable. If company fails to do so, it may lose customers & or quantity demanded. And competitors may come in & beat him. Show me an example otherwise.
swu880 1 year ago
I challenge u to point out a long lasting monopoly that did not rely on government intervention(subsidies, regulations, licensing, restrictions, tarriffs,etc).
Moreover, i shall enhance the challenge, After u find such a store or company, tell me just how "secure" is their so called "markethold". lolol
Theres a reason why no monopoly can ever last a long time- maybe at most 1 or 2 years or so. Cuz its a fuckin free market! people may both enter & exit freely
swu880 1 year ago
It was the capitalism of the 1800s which brought us out of poverty as entrepreneurs & inventors developed capital goods & improved productivity. If it was just greed then you really think people just became greedy during the 1800s? how about a few years before then? And how come greed tends to occur in cyclical fashions as keynsians/statists/leftists try to blame capitalism for the buisiness cycles?
swu880 1 year ago
Leftists/statists/marxists typically are very uneducated "feel gooders" who have never even taken any economics course before or understood real economic history. They often hold statism or marxism as their religion & blindly condemn the voluntary exchanges of the free market as being evil & wrought with "greed" although they themselves are very greedy. Yet greed itself can never explain how people were able to be lifted out of poverty & how a middle class was able to develop & form
swu880 1 year ago
It is NEVER any bureaucrat or politician who creates the wealth. ALL wealth is created in the voluntary private sector
swu880 1 year ago
By no counts is life ever 'fair'. there is a difference between mutual benefit & fairness. The latter implies someone must decide "what is fair"- & typically u dont get much of a say in that. Mutual benefit though is the result of mutually voluntary transactions- its the very breath of a free market economy. It is the entrepreneurs seeking their own self interest who were able to improve the lot of the ordinary person.
swu880 1 year ago
Everyone understood that pretty much what was expected was: if u lucky enough to survive ur own birth, u would squander around in filth & real poverty for a couple years then u just die. thats it!
There is absolutely nothing fascinating about the causes of poverty. What is truly fascinating is how wealth comes about. hence why Adam Smith's book is called "an inquiry into the wealth of nations" and NOT an "inquiry into poverty". & i encourage u to read Smith's book.
swu880 1 year ago
In no instance is there anything fair about life? the very fact that u aint suffering backbreaking labor 24/7 & living on meager sustinence is proof of that fact! Throughout the majority of human history, for millenniums, guess what everyone was pitifully poor. Yet u will not find a soul in the 11th century who was protesting poverty or going on a hunger strike- why? well EVERYONE was pretty much poor. so much for equality.
swu880 1 year ago
If preferences were not transitive, this is what would happen:
Joe likes Bananas to apples --> apples to oranges --> oranges to Bananas... and so we have a circular list of "equal preferences". What that means is basically u get into a store and u will never ever be able to choose anything!
swu880 1 year ago
But in fact, preferences and values and cultures are never equal! This is one of the foundational concepts of economics- each person has his own set of subjective preferences and all preferences are transitive.
Now what does this mean? well lets look at our good friend Joe here. Now Joe likes Bananas to apples. -->apples to oranges --> and oranges to grapes. So Joe tends to favor Bananas and consequentially the banana industry far more than he does the grape, apple & orange industries!
swu880 1 year ago
Everyone discriminates one way or another- if we didn't discriminate, we could never choose! you could never choose between apples, bannanas, corn, potatos and oranges if you thought all foods were equal. just think about it- discrimination is merely one's own preferences for something. If no one had any preferences, then no one can ever make any decision whatsoever- he could hardly breathe hardly eat, hardly sleep cuz all choices are "equal".
swu880 1 year ago
That is the rule of the marketplace- its all voluntary. Govt is not!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Also, I'd point out that your property rights are themselves a privilege. It only seems like they're not because you live in a prosperous, relatively stable country that got that way by following the wisdom of certain Enlightenment thinkers, and then working out the ramifications on ever more inclusive scales. The Civil Rights Act was part of that project. The point is material prosperity, not defending the ill-defined abstract concept of "freedom."
Oneiricist 1 year ago
@Oneiricist
uh- also please study real history not the leftitst indoctrination u get at state sponsored 'schools'. Please read the "Politically Incorrect guide to American History" and "33 questions about American History you are not supposed to ask"
civil rights act really does nothing for civil liberties as a whole. nor did the unions. hell u dont really even understand the fundamental nature or the root source of freedom!
swu880 1 year ago
If u find the buisiness so distasteful, then simply dont buy from there. Likewise, should i find u distasteful, i choose not to serve u. Dont fuckin go cry to the cops one way or another and respect my damn property rights. Its a privilege i let u in my store in the first place not a god damn right!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 "its a violation of the very notion of freedom to introduce force and coercion. " Right, and that should include arbitrarily forcing anybody out of a local market (think beyond retail stores here...). Discrimination impedes the functioning of free markets. And the private sector, insofar as it adheres to the rules of free-market capitalism suggested by foundational thinkers like Adam Smith, does have to be fair. (Btw, "public sphere" is different from "public sector.")
Oneiricist 1 year ago
@Oneiricist
ok... and point to any instance in a free market where some store has "forced" out another store without government intervention- lolol
swu880 1 year ago
@Oneiricist
public sector is the very misleading name given to govt. A more accurate name would be- "The gang of thieves, liars, murderers & sexual predators who rely on force & coercion".
And public sphere is also highly misleading- i let u in my store- thats a privilege. Going into a so called public school or a public courthouse should be a right - though govt in all its propaganda have totally confused these two concepts.
swu880 1 year ago
When you buy clothes at a local department store, do you also buy an equal amount from say walmart or target or in JCPenny? NO! The private voluntary sector is mutually beneficial- this does not mean it is equal for all. on no accounts is this true- ever! that would be entirely nonsensical. And thus so is the converse entirely nonsensical that i can not charge different prices in order to offer various incentives for my business.
swu880 1 year ago
"Ladies discount" encourages more women into my buisiness and other customers who like to meet & associate with women. Yet that is misconstrued by politicians & leftists as being "unfair"- no one in the private sector has to be "fair"! Are u fair in ur support of a burger joint when u go to eat at a restaurant? When u choose to eat at Wendy's or Burger King, are you fair to Mcdonalds, and other local restaurants? do u offer the exact same patronage & demand for service?
swu880 1 year ago
In the voluntary private sector, individuals choose what buisinesses they wish to associate and not associate with. likewise, buisinesses can also choose whom to associate & not associate with. It is mutually consenting & voluntary- thus the exchange is made mutually beneficial! in private sector, i can favor serving hot girls by allowing a special price for women- say "ladies discount" - but govt can never constitutionally do such a thing
swu880 1 year ago
Government is totally different. govt is based upon force & coercion- theres no real voluntary exchange. To the extent that govt is necessary in a free society, that being very little, it must be universally applicable and thus it holds no rod of discrimination only that of universal equality under the law & its services rendered universally equally available
Govt has totally flipped these 2 concepts on their head and confused the voluntary sector with the corrupt sector that is govt
swu880 1 year ago
Likewise i do not dictate to u whom u should & should not serve. EVERYTHING in the free market must be voluntary- if there be force or coercion, how the fuck is that free? its a violation of the very notion of freedom to introduce force and coercion. Should i not be willing to serve say those taller than 6' or those wearing blue shirts- that remains solely MY choice why? cuz my labor is mine not urs unless you are in the buisiness of promoting slavery
swu880 1 year ago
Property rights say that you own your own property. No one else owns your own property. And you being the owner of your own property have the right to discern & DISCRIMINATE in your choice of how to allocate your property how to use your property. Now then, just cuz i allow people into my buisiness hardly gives u the right to say WHOM I SHOULD SERVE. Only i have the right to say whom i should serve cuz my work, my labor, my skills my time & my resources are MINE not urs!
swu880 1 year ago
Using KKK as a model of acceptable discrimination is...well, self-explanatory in some respects. Otherwise, the practical outcome of allowing discrimination as described here will be further segregation of society along arbitrary lines. Also it presents a scenario where, since freedom to discriminate is not guaranteed by law, I may choose to ignore someone's attempt to discriminate against me, incurring a conflict requiring legal mediation. Not super practical.
Oneiricist 1 year ago
@Oneiricist
well freedom to discriminate = freedom to choose. discriminating by race, by sex by height, by pants size, etc - all those are merely criteria for the discrimination or choice
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Right, discrimination is a TYPE of choice. The law draws a line at arbitrary discrimination in the marketplace (to the extent that it can) partly to ensure lawful free-market competition (imagine a contractor shut out of a local industry because a supplier refuses to sell to him.) The marketplace is, whether we like it or not, a PUBLIC sphere of intersecting private interests, one whose activity has social repercussions in a way that your decision to marry somebody does not. cont...
Oneiricist 1 year ago
@swu880 ... The other important point is that the law isn't infringing on your right to discriminate, only to act on it within a properly public context, such as the marketplace, electoral office, civil service, public education, healthcare etc. The maintenance of public order depends, in part, on these guarantees. Punishing racist attitudes doesn't even enter into it, practically speaking. In any case, most true-blue racists live angry, fearful lives; that's it's own punishment, I think.
Oneiricist 1 year ago
@Oneiricist
Understand there is a difference between the public sector- or more accurately Goverenment vs the private voluntary sector. Firstly govt has absolutely no right of privacy or any form of property rights. The private voluntary sector though is the sector where you and i live. in that sector we have inalienable property righs.
swu880 1 year ago
"an agnostic places God outside of human comprehnsion.
Thus, they remove God from the Natural world. Then, to define God in anyway is to attach God to the natural world, so God must remain undefined and without a quality to remain supernatural.
So if God has no qualities, is undefined, and is completely outside of the natural world or natural definition, then God really doesnt matter...
Thus, Agnostisism really doesnt matter, or all agnostics are rationally atheists, to be relevant. "
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
Thanks Walter E. Williams. I support your reasoning.
I wonder what you think about public college, and census documents asking about race? Do you think this should be included? Is it against our constitution?
pilgrimsprogressfan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bullcrap. Women and minorities only use it as a tool these days, and white males face far more discrimination as a result of the employers fears of tangling with their support groups. Case and example:
While i was employed at Shaw Industries, a women was called to do my job to eliminate my overtime. She ran out of printer paper, let the job fail. She was not even warned, I was. I was told that she was a woman, that I needed to carry her some paper boxes
glpainterwindstream 1 year ago
@USAGymnast That is highly dependent on the neighborhood, something the Federal Government has failed to respect form day one.
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack "We" didn't agree that Jesus's color was not mentioned...."feet of bronze" is not olive or white..And check out the Nicene conference...actually there were two of them...both conferences made numerous changes to the Bible...It's called research you idiot....do some...
freein2339 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack The defense of slavery is not on this vid....but williams has defended slavery ...And the fact that he opens this vid with a defense of the racist rant by rand paul tells me that williams is nothing but a useless uncle tom....
freein2339 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack Why can't you address the point instead of playing with yourself..??? williams defended slavery and he defended rand paul....end of story...ok Adolf....damm you're stupid...
freein2339 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack No supposing ...Jesus was Black and that makes a big difference in the mental outlook that Black people have on themselves....That's why the Bible was altered and that's why Jesus was painted white....so it would be easier to control the Black race.....and quiet as it's kept...others races as well...This point is pretty easy to understand....are you a fucking retard...???
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 With the way you treat people and this subject along with all of your vile name calling, i doubt you have any real belief in the Bible anyway, so why would does this it matter to you anyway?
He was a Nazerene,he looked like a middle eastern,not a european,or african. But no matter where people are from, their artists will always paint him to resemble that culture. The Bible never mentions what color he was, it's not important to God
Jesus's real color? A big blinding bright light!
ricadrew 1 year ago
@ricadrew That all sounds very poetic but there is a reason why the true race of Jesus was altered..And the Bible does mention it ..you just don't like the facts..You have to remember that the original Jews were not "Jews" in today's context..There were African people that were forced out of their land...sound familiar.? it is unteresting that you have no problem with Jesus being white or "off-white" but as soon as the facts of him being Black are presented you say that he's a btight light.
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 LOL, I didn't write a poem, i wrote the truth according to the Bible. Really, it says Gods a bright light that you can't even look at. It also says the Word became flesh, but it never mentions a color. But if you really need him to be black, ok, i've no problem with that. Heck, maybe Nazerenes were black, i wasn't there, so who knows. I've read the Bible front to back and i've not read what you claim. I could've missed it though, so tell me where in the Bible those things are, ok?
ricadrew 1 year ago
@ricadrew Interesting...so you really have no problem with Jesus being Black..???
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 Don't know how to make it more clear, no, I have no problem with Jesus being black. He is the Lord in any skin color.
But i honestly believe it's about the last thing he wants anyone to focus on, but because of people exploiting the race thing, i do understand why for some this becomes important.
It's funny though, even my daughter (she's bi-racial) needed to point out that Jesus looks more like her than me. That required a long "it doesn't matter" talk, LOL.
ricadrew 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack The point that williams defends slavery and also defends racists like rand paul.....
freein2339 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack Figures...As soon as the truth hits you you again fail to address the pount...typical puppet reflex...
freein2339 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack I agree, an opiate for the masses. Also, if one can believe one religion on faith, one must believe all the other ones, and everything else that can be hypothesized on faith, there would be no need for science. But common sense shows this would be suicidal, how would we create better computers, technology, cars, etc. ?
People do let their lives decay, dreaming of some unsure valhalla afterwards, instead of making the most of the life they know they have now.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker You make no fucking sense.
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@CaptainVideo890 fuck you bitch. You make no sense. See I can do that too idiot. explain your position or fuck off.
There's a saying, don't insult without an explanation. And way to go back a few pages to find my comment virginfag.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker Try explaining your entire comment.
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@CaptainVideo890 'splain deez nutz bitch haha
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker OK, you're saying religion will somehow retard the development of cars?
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago 8
@CaptainVideo890 religion retards science, and science is used to create shit in reality, so I guess so.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker I guess that would explain why every inventor in the history of mankind has been an atheist.
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@CaptainVideo890 just because they weren't parading around the masses of bible thumpers yelling in their face, I don't believe your fairy tales, doesn't mean they were not atheists.
religion, accept things on faith as truth.
science, opposite of religion.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker You're serious?
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@CaptainVideo890 Do you believe in Santa Claus as well? If not then shut the fuck up you hypocrite and get off my nutz
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker No I don't believe in Santa Clause, no I'm not a hypocrite, and no I don't believe every inventor ever was secretly an atheist.
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@CaptainVideo890 If you are religious and you don't believe in Santa Claus, then you are a hypocrite. If not, good for you for having some reason left.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker I don't really think that's what hypocrisy is.
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@CaptainVideo890 Well then it's arbitrary preference, or prejudice, or lack of logic. If you believe one thing on faith, you have to believe everything on faith. They all equally have a lack of evidence to be proved truth scientifically, but the religious mind doesn't require proof, just faith. So believe everything on faith, and if you can do that then you don't need science at all. But reality would prove otherwise, since the computer u r using right now is a product of science and not faith.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker Why does everybody say that? That's very poorly thought out. Basically what you're saying is "If you believe 'A Brief History of Time' is true, you believe books are true, so you must believe 'Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health' is true."
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@CaptainVideo890 Science is a way of thinking to access the truth. Books are a medium to communicate a message. Books are not a way of thinking, since many different books are very different from one another.
But religion, like all religions, rely on faith.
See you obviously have flawed logic, like all retards and religious people.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker Here's an even more apt example, since a science book is sort of in the wrong sphere. How about "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" versus "The Gospel According to Mark"? Both are biased first person accounts of happenings that the author wanted people to know about, and yet I'm guessing you only believe one?
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@CaptainVideo890 I haven't read either, but don't try to spin science off as another religion requiring faith and belief. Science justifies itself with evidence. It's really stupid when people try to claim atheism is just one of the many other religions. That's like saying science is a religious, which is obviously untrue-- because science is true.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rockhardxrocker When did I "spin science"? That's the entire reason I corrected myself. You really are a terrible person, saying things like, "See you obviously have flawed logic, like all retards and religious people." Not even true, BTW.
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker Atheism is merely a belief, and therefore a matter of faith (As such a thing cannot be proven or disproven to human faculties). As far as evidence is concerned, agnosticism is the correct path.
Rensune 1 year ago
@Rensune I don't know why I waste my time.
So anyway, nothing can be proven, NOTHING! Things can only be disproven, via the scientific method.
When things go on long enough without being disproven, they are theories, and then laws, but even laws are never "proven", they can still one day be disproven though.
Atheism does not rely on faith. Science is not the same as religion. Atheism is not another religion.
If you believe in one god, you have to believe in them all, and even Santa Claus
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker I did not call Atheism a religion, but a belief. And it is hardly scientific, as it's main standing point cannot be proven or disproven. As far as science is concerned, agnosticism is the only correct path. Whether or not you want to believe is a personal preference.
Rensune 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker *Claus
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack That actually makes some sense especially when Black people still worship the illusion of a white Jesus...but I get your point...
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 Jesus wasn't white, he was olived skin and no more resembled black africans than he did white europeans.
ricadrew 1 year ago
@ricadrew Jesus was Black Adolf....deal woth it...And do the research and stop believing all the hype...And by the way....bronze is much darker than olive.....
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 I really don't care what color he is, you're the one that said he was white.
Did your mother have any kids that lived?
ricadrew 1 year ago
@ricadrew You care because you said he was olive....which he was not....Did you mother bark after you were born...??
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 I don't care if he's olive or black, or even if he turned out to be the only white middlle eastern ever to be born, but at this time, there hasn't been so your statement saying "white Jesus" stands corrected.
But now that i've read your comments to others, I see i'm mearly dealing with your everyday, standard, run-of-the-mill racist.
ricadrew 1 year ago
@ricadrew I merely state facts Adolf and of you can't deal with it then that's your problem...And you do care what color Jesus is...that's why you keep making weak excuses for you defense of a white Jesus
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 Did mommy drop you on your head? Defending a 'white Jesus"?
Obviously it's you that's in constant defence mode as you can't deal with being wrong when you claimed Jesus was white. Before you decide to reply to grownups comments on the internet, it would be a good idea to study up just a bit on what you're commenting about. For your sake i hope you really are 12 yrs old, at least you'd have an excuse for sounding so immature. You're really not racist, you're just really dumb!
ricadrew 1 year ago
@ricadrew I never claimed that Jesus was white so give that weak shit a break..The fact is Jesus was Black not some olive colored person that you claimed....got it now..??..fucking idiot...
freein2339 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack Who gives a fuck what you think an uncle tom is...You know damn well how I feel about uncle toms so deal with it...And yiu still didn't adress mym poinjt....useless nazi...
freein2339 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack Nazis hate Black people and they practice racism...That's what you are and that's what you do...Unjcle Toms like williams , sowell , elder and a few other assorted vermin defend raqcism and assholes like you....got that Adolf...??? And ytou still didn'tm address my point...guess the truth is too much for your little brain...
freein2339 1 year ago
@AntiTrollGoesSmack Fuck you Adolf you fucking little dick nazi..This asshole is defending another useless racist asshole just like he's done most of his useless uncle tom life..And who cares where he's "from"..If clear that his mind is still on the plantation...And you and the rest of your nazi but-ties you didn't mention williams defense of slavery and racism...so go fuck a goat....
freein2339 1 year ago
I wonder if he's religious, he seems too rational to be.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
@rockhardxrocker comment fail
lockdown260 1 year ago
@lockdown260 Well most black ppl are hallelujah christians, or maybe I'm just discriminating.
rockhardxrocker 1 year ago
williams is great. i cant take neocon rush but will tune in if williams hosts.
rmcc0002 1 year ago
I discriminate against statist women :)
AnarchoRich 1 year ago 2
what do you do when the private sells their goods to the public
daming209 1 year ago
GOD I LUV THIS MAN!!!
jjmdirector 1 year ago 3
It always amazes me how the left is more than willing to reveal their racism as long as they can annoymously comment. They couldn't be more arrogant and condecsening when it comes to any minority that doesn't need their white help!
The modern version of slave owners loudly proclaim that if our slave people dare step outside the thought confines they've established for them, they're off the plantation and have become house negro's. Obviously no-one has ever owned Walter!
ricadrew 1 year ago
I see Walter is still up to his same uncle tom useless knee-grow self...what a pititful excuse of a man...He'll defend racism at any cost...
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 Is that what you heard? I heard a brave man defending freedom. I guess it just depends on where your head is. Mine isn't up my ass. Is yours?
jamo387 1 year ago
@jamo387 This is the same useless uncle tom that said it slavery was a blessing...so fuck him and fuck you...fucking nazi....
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 Awww how cute. Don't get your panties in a bunch just because you're too stupid to come back with a reasoned response. After all, you're a product of the educational system that this "uncle tom" was trying to save you from.
jamo387 1 year ago
@jamo387 I merely state facts you little dick goat fucking nazi..Williams is nothing but a useless uncle tom that is still waiting for crumbs from his slave masters table...so once again...fuck him and fuck you...
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 Facts like "little dick goat fucking nazi"? You obviously have some real writing talent there. No doubt nurtured by your grade "A" education. I don't see any facts in your half baked sentences. I do see a lot of crying and whining from someone who's probably as smart as a third grader and should look in the mirror before insulting people who are, without a doubt, superior to them in every way. I refer here to Mr. Williams of course.
jamo387 1 year ago
@jamo387 Is that all you can dispute..??? I notice you didn't comment on williams defense of slavery...typical puppet reflex....dickhead...
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 Who is the puppet? You're the one with the reflexive "uncle tom" bullshit whenever a black man doesn't parrot the approved black opinions. You also don't argue the facts of this video. You're more interested in infantile temper tantrums. I think you need to look in the mirror and think about exactly why you hate a man who is more intelligent and reasonable than you will ever be. I'll venture a guess that narrow people like you are very afraid of a free thinker like Mr. Williams.
jamo387 1 year ago
@jamo387 The point of the video is that uncle tom williams is defending another racist...just like he's useless punk ass has done for years...And if a Black man defends racists and racism then he is useless...just like your nazi punk ass is....fucking idiot...go fuck a goat...
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 What's with you and goat sex? And why do you have 39 posts on this page alone? Do you even have a job? Man, if ever there was someone who needed to heed Walter Williams advice it is you. You should shut your mouth and open your ears for a change, you might learn something. While you're at it,leave that damn goat alone, pervert.
jamo387 1 year ago
@jamo387 I merely state facts Adolf and goats are more afriad of people like you then me....ain't that right...Besides being my bitch is something that you have to earn instead of counting my post like a good suck-a-terry......And williams is nothing but a useless uncle tom....
freein2339 1 year ago
@freein2339 Being your bitch? suck-a-terry? Man you must be a killer with the ladies. Stick to the goats.
jamo387 1 year ago
This guy is a real kook...i mean how can America be a beacon and moral force to the world, if it advocates discrimination amongst private corporations dealing in commerce....what you do in you own home is one thing, but totally unacceptable if your a local shopkeeper and want to discriminate against someone on the basis of colour,gender etc....not in a free and equal society, you dont!!
polkarde 1 year ago
@polkarde in a free society you have the freedom to make choice, bad and good ones. If some shopkeeper is a racist, I would like to know as I don't want to make business with such folks - but if they can't show their oppinion I can't tell and will end up making business with such folks.
You as 'capital holder/consumer' are the ones that is in charge to regulated the markets, not government.
Sideshowbobx 1 year ago 19
@polkarde Trying to make society equal always comes at the cost of freedom. That's the whole point.
duncanhunter2008 1 year ago
@polkarde your totally wrong
If I don't want white people in my house, I have that choice.
if I don't want white people in my business, I have that choice.
It's 100% about private property rights.
The government has no authority about who I choose to live in my home.
Just as they should not have any authority to tell me who I let into my business.
HandyMan101 1 year ago
@HandyMan101
um...actually i think they do@business but at home no i don't think....thats ur property but ur business i dont knw. u could get sued by the kkk or something lol. :s
True2TheBlueYoViGang 1 year ago
So basic idea Uncle Tom gives a us a justification to be bigots
baffledman 1 year ago
@baffledman If you allow the bigots to let themselves be known, you can refuse to patronize their businesses. Presently, a racist shopkeeper suffers no 'penalty' for his views because he is forced by government to keep such views hush hush. Remove this force, let him put up his 'no blacks' sign..then sit back and watch his business crumble. Can't think of a more satisfying and effective means of showing a racist their place.
dorvinion 1 year ago 6
@baffledman Somethjing like that , but remember this is the same useless house nigger that defended slavery..He actually said it was a blessing...
freein2339 1 year ago
@baffledman Hell, you're free to be an a**hole, no? It's a free country.
jamo387 1 year ago
Great video
AminCad 1 year ago 2
Excellent commentary, Mr. Williams. Thank you.
thepatriotdames1776 1 year ago 15
Well said, sir. I shall look for your published writings the next time I visit my local book emporium.
d0861 1 year ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again; Williams & Sowell I would happily vote for interchangeably for Pres/VP of the US.
032125 1 year ago
Anti-discrimination is a doctrine that invariably results in a person or people making the worst possible decision because any other conclusion would be an act of discrimination. If the NBA was to behave in this manner I would be starting for the Lakers instead of Kobe..... wait, maybe im in favor of it.
aussieconservative 1 year ago
Apparently many of those posting here are too young to remember Jim Crow laws which criminalized business owners who attempted to serve blacks in the 40's, 50's and early 60's. No rational business discriminates without some valid market based reason... like a product designed for a particular customer characteristic. Consciously turning away willing customers is something no rational business owner ever does and it's just something dreamed up by Utopians and other control freaks.
j1a2r34 1 year ago
A true Libertarian point of view that I agree with.
bertly71 1 year ago 2
Dr. Williams for Prez!
countallwriteins 1 year ago
Thank you for your voice of reason regarding Rand Paul. He's definitely not racist.
anonymous915 1 year ago 3
@anonymous915 Rand Paul is not racist for going against CRA, but if you see the massive inconsistencies in his positions, you will realize that no principled libertarian, and remember even a white supremacist would want to remove those aspects of CRA, if not the whole Act itself, just based on that you cannot find out whether he is libertarian or not. cont.....
renegadedivision 1 year ago
Rand Paul wants private property owners to have the right to discriminate against whom they wanna let in, but at the same time he wants federal govt to prevent private property owners from hiring some individual based on his citizenship status. If govt shouldn't prevent private individuals from discriminating against individuals, then why does he support govt interference in hiring individuals based on their citizenship status?
renegadedivision 1 year ago
And the gem for all those who wanna claim Rand Paul is 'principled libertarian' and not racist. This is from his website:
"I propose a moratorium on Visas from about ten rogue nations or anybody that has traveled to those nations."
If that's not racism, or like the worst form of collectivism then what is it?
Basically Rand Paul wants you to not be allowed in America, if your compatriot did something. If Ted Nugent shot someone in Europe, the EU must not allow you to enter its borders,
renegadedivision 1 year ago
@renegadedivision
You're a moron. If terrorists are coming into the US from Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc that's where the visas aren't going to be issued.
Not that it's right or wrong, but your take on it was downright outlandish.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nosferotica1 "If terrorists are coming into the US from Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc that's where the visas aren't going to be issued."
And how is this not racist and a contradictory viewpoint than his rest of the stance? Discriminating against one individual based on what some other individual did of the same 'class', 'caste', 'creed' or 'nation', if that's not bigotry than what is?
renegadedivision 1 year ago
@renegadedivision
Because they get exploited.
Immigration is a very very very shady, gray area with the Libertarians. Even I am at odds with how it should work, but what it comes down to is you need a SSN and a state ID and whatnot to get a job. You need a birth certificate to even get that shit, so if you and I need it to get a job and they are hiring illegals despite that, then they are breaking the law by hiring illegal people anyway.
That's why they get exploited, who's gonna tell?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 As far as I know illegal immigrants are much less exploited than citizens themselves, they get paid more(because employer doesn't have to spend on health insurance and stuff), they can be hired and fired easily so they always have more jobs than the legal workers.
I don't know why is it such a gray area for god knows which Libertarians you know, I don't know any libertarian who does not also call himself a conservative who is against immigration(state sanctioned or otherwise).
renegadedivision 1 year ago
@renegadedivision
Paid more?
Where do you live?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 The fact is as long as a private individual is willing to sell or rend them private property for any individual to live on, and there are people willing to hire them, I don't think why there should be any problem to anyone.
I mean before you ask the question what should be done with illegal aliens, shouldn't you ask 'If they really wanna come here and live an honest life why can't they simply file the required papers get in line and come in?'
renegadedivision 1 year ago
@renegadedivision
Of course I do. They say "When in Rome..." but we give them every incentive in the world to come here illegally. Why don't we worry about caring for the illegals once they become legal instead of throwing more gas on the fire?
It's why "Homeland Security" is such a joke. All they did was make flying a pain in the ass.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 I did not understand a bit of what you just wrote there. Care to elaborate?
renegadedivision 1 year ago
@renegadedivision
Who wants to do the paperwork when the perks for being illegal are so much better?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 Paperwork? Do you think all legal immigration process consists of is paperwork? 'Paperwork' is just a very small word for the hell hole current legal immigration process is. Not to mention the thousands of dollars required for it. The perks for being illegal aren't really better, its just that legal immigration sucks so bad and is so highly restricted that being illegal is so lucrative than sitting at the end of line waiting for 20 years or gathering $20,000 for everything.
renegadedivision 1 year ago
@renegadedivision
Yeah, I seriously thought it was just a sheet of paper. :P Of course, the naturalization process takes time and isn't free, but people do it every day.
And the perks aren't really better? Really? They're here and we have to accommodate them, they're poor so it's typically at no cost to them, instead of learning English everything is being printed in Spanish...
I'm not inclined to agree with you, especially when they're sending all that money back home to Mexico.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 "Of course, the naturalization process takes time and isn't free, but people do it every day." That doesn't mean anything, its like saying "paying taxes isn't easy and it takes time, but people do it every year, so it doesn't matter if it takes 10 forms or 1500 forms to file tax returns, people love doing it, and we don't need to do anything about it, lets just focus on what should we do about the 95% of people who should file, but do not file their taxes".
renegadedivision 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 Essentially you wanna solve the problem without focusing on the root cause.
renegadedivision 1 year ago
@renegadedivision
So you're saying make it easier to come here?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 Exactly, you must understand one thing for sure, you cannot choose whether or not to have 13 million immigrants, you can only choose whether you want 13 million illegal immigrants or 13 million legal immigrants. By relaxing the immigration restrictions a lot and making only the bare minimum requirements, you will have a diverse immigrant population rather than hispanic heavy immigrant pop right now.
Google "immigration hell" and read the cracked article about 5 circles of imm hell.
renegadedivision 1 year ago
@renegadedivision
Speak English and know American History.
How about that? The only price is the cost of travel as long as you know English and American History. You will take a history test, and before the history test there will be a casual conversation to see if you know enough of the English language to function day to day as an American.
Even foreign countries, part of the cost of citizenship was knowing their language.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
If you are a father coming over to work manual labor and bring money to his family in mexico who are starving... you really think you'd take the time to learn english??
Do you think your ancestors when they came over all knew english? NO WAY! its was "Spreken zie deutsch?" @ ellis island. And if someone told them to turn around and sail back across the atlantic what do think they would have said? "Verpisst euch!"
mots35 1 year ago
@mots35
So everyone under the sun should simply have free run of our country?
That's fantastic. No naturalization process whatsoever. Everyone come on in, WE'LL LEARN SPANISH FOR YOU so you don't have to TROUBLE YOURSELF learning the language of EVERYONE ELSE THAT LIVES HERE.
Sure thing.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
Why does everything you say have to do with the extremes? No, I think its obvious this is not a black and white issue. We could even go a step further... what gives you the right to claim moral authority on this issue when it was in fact the result of the Mexican-American War which forced these peoples ancestors to cede land?
mots35 1 year ago
@mots35
So we've had it wrong since Santa Ana, the Alamo, and the death of Davey Crockett?
You're saying that even a no-cost naturalization process based on 2 things is STILL unreasonable?
1. Learn English
2. Learn American History.
If that was still unreasonable, then there would be no point at all even regulating the border. Just let them come on in.
It's part of the naturalization process in other countries. If it's not unreasonable for them, why would it be for us?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
I'm saying for some it is unreasonable. For some the stakes are too high for some arbitrary rule. Again its not black and white. Be thankful you were born here. You could have very easily been born in a rat hole in mexico or under a theocracy abroad... I doubt very much you would feel the same way/.
mots35 1 year ago
@renegadedivision Hm, YT seems to be having problems...sorry if this posts twice - Paul doesn't want to change the CRA either - he's made that quite clear. The Dems have blown this way out of proportion.
anonymous915 1 year ago
@anonymous915 I don't care what Rand said afterwards or anything, I care what Rand said in the interview, ideologically he says that govt shouldn't prevent private businesses and individuals from discriminating, so it doesn't matter what he says about CRA act, the truth is, he is a hypocrite, and in fact worse collectivist than most Republicans. Not many Republican leaders are that retarded to suggest "Lets not issue visas to the countries where terrorists come from."
prashantpawar 1 year ago
I mean I can raise another point, 99% of the terrorists are Muslim, so why are we giving Muslims visas?(Check National Security section in issues on Rand Paul's website). On the top of that, this guy is going to drag down any rational criticism against CRA into his selective bigotry.
prashantpawar 1 year ago
@prashantpawar
He's not a hypocrite. Did you listen to this video? in the 60s and 50s, it was state sanctioned. It was going on in the public sector. He said that needed to change, and in private matters the government has no business telling others what to do.
He's not a hypocrite. You heard what you wanted to hear despite what Rand actually said. The fact of the matter is it was a very unpopular thing to say, no matter how much water such an argument holds.
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1 I am as much against CRA as Rand Paul himself claimed to be, but then both these guys, Walter E Williams and Rand Paul turn around on illegal immigration and claim that they want govt to interfere in preventing private businesses to do X, but not prevent in doing Y.
renegadedivision 1 year ago
Marriage? Seriously? You're comparing your sexual preferences to fair private business practices across America?
You are systematically dumbing down the argument.
mots35 1 year ago
@mots35
"Fair" private business practices? Even big businesses show you day in and day out they don't give a flying fuck about "fair."
You need to learn something about sin, and that's you can only sin against yourself. Many people abhor discrimination, so if a dude wants to say "white only" and risk pissing off the world, he can go broke, or just change his policy. Even then, would the free market forgive him?
What's more fair than stupidity being it's own worst enemy?
nosferotica1 1 year ago
@nosferotica1
This may come as a shock to you, but the majority of the south was racist. Businesses could have easily survived excluding blacks, in fact I would not be surprised if they did better than businesses who rejected this bigotry.
The country needed