Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:17:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1289 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > > > You haven't seen a demonstration of how this is detrimental?!? Did you miss
> > > > the reasons for the civil rights movement? Ensuing riots in reaction to
> > > > racism? I pointed out earlier that you get that kind of thing from
> > > > disenfranchisement of vast segments from society.
>
> On the topic of disenfranchisement... I feel pretty disenfranchised. Bush
> can take his 600 bucks and stick it.
Well no wonder you feel disenfranchised - the American people rejected Dubya
both on a majority and plurality base, and he's still the president. :-(
But on a greater level, you feel disenfranchised because the political
philosophy you support can't muster the votes to get anywhere. I'm trying
to make show why that is happening
>
> > > > You get it even now -
> > > > make the forces against it weaker and you'll get it more. Idunno - I find
> > > > that terribly detrimental.
> > >
> > > Oh, me too. I just don't see it as following from allowing (not requiring)
> > > businesses (with no barriers to entry) to choose who to serve. Jim Crow laws
> > > REQUIRED businesses to discriminate.
> > >
> > > ++Lar
> >
> > *Some* did. Note the first one listed here:
> >
> > http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm
>
> Noted. Quoting:
>
> "No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in
> wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men
> are placed."
>
> Although worded carefully to make it seem like it's optional, this seems to
> require discrimination to my read, if you work through the implications of
> preventing a business from telling its employees who they should serve...
> that is, if some business did not want to have segregated wards and asked
> nurses to work in unsegregated wards, as soon as one refused, it had a
> massive scheduling problem since that business could not dismiss the nurse
> on pain of law.
Yup, a careful read supports your analysis. But see below in various
sections regarding the true upshot of this either way.
>
> If this isn't micromeddling in how a business conducts its affairs then I
> don't know what it is.
I was refering to cases that prevent racism and you are refering to cases
that require racism. If you have a beef against the former, you need to
address that with examples that apply, not ones that are the exact opposite.
I've always said that is businesses would clean their own house, they
wouldn't invite micromanaging. They invariably bring it upon themselves.
> > Further, I'm sure you know that businesses that *wanted* to discriminate
> > were behind those laws - typifying all businesses in these states as
> > innocent victims isn't exactly accurate.
>
> Didn't say that.
The implication was there. Saying that businesses were required to
discriminate when the real intent of the laws were to give businesses (and
individuals) that wanted to discriminate the excuse was a misrepresentation.
> Did you? Haven't denied that businesses, given the chance,
> will play a game that *allows* for them to get unfair advantage in such a
> way that they *do* get unfair advantage. I prefer to change the game rules
> so that no one business can get unfair advantage written into law.
I don't see how fair or unfair advantage relates to racism in relation to
the Jim Crow laws or current discrimination cases.
>
> > My point was that Libertarians
> > wish to weaken government protections, in any case.
>
> Wish to decrease government interference. Big difference.
No difference since the outcome is effectively to weaken government
protections. It's an easy thing to say "decrease government interference"
when you are a white male, not so easy when it's that big bad central
government struck down the Jim Crow laws (and the effects of the Jim Crow
laws would have been there without the former regardless).
>
> I don't feel particularly "protected" by my government. Especially if I
> happen to have views that are a bit out of the norm... I'm liable to be
> framed on phony charges and then shot at by snipers when I don't meekly
> appear at an arraignment that I never received notice of.
How many white males has that happened to in comparison to lynchings of
black males? Of course there is abuse of power. There always will be.
Eternal vigilance is the only answer. Your answer doesn't reduce the power,
it just lets it accrue elsewhere and reduces my influence over it.
>
> The government doesn't discriminate, it oppresses lots of different groups.
> Just in different ways. Welfare as it currently is constructed is a
> particularly insidious form of oppression, as you highlighted.
But it's interesting to note that those who oppose welfare the most
(Republicans) are also the ones who don't want it to change.
>
> You still need to show that allowing free association and choosing who to do
> business with is in and of itself unjust or that it is likely to lead to unrest.
I already showed it: the civil rights movement. No, don't try and palm it
off as something Jim Crow laws foisted onto businesses - those business
interests behind the Jim Crow laws were effectively trying to achieve
exactly what you are talking about. If you don't understand this, I can
only say it illustrates the reason why the Libertarian Party is mostly white
males.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) That's not exactly true. It may not be mustering votes, but like I said, it doesn't have to win elections, per se. Peace and freedom ARE winning. So I can feel disenfranchised for my own reasons. (...) Preventing racism and requiring it are (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) On the topic of disenfranchisement... I feel pretty disenfranchised. Bush can take his 600 bucks and stick it. (...) "No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
