Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:43:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1339 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Preventing racism and requiring it are both meddling.
I pointed out the real difference between your two examples - you
consistently refuse to address it.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Suppose I wanted to start a bus line that let people sit where they would.
> If the state government enforces laws that prevent me from doing so, and
> thus securing competitive advantage in the market I choose to serve over a
> bus line that requires segregation, is not that an unfair barrier to entry?
The scenario in regards to Jim Crow is the state government gave you an
excuse to allow the segregated busing you wanted (you not being you
personally), not the example you provide above. You are clinging to a
distortion that wasn't how the situation really was.
>
> If, further, armed thugs come by and torch my bus garage and the state denys
> me protection and refuses to prosecute the arsonists, is that not an unfair
> barrier to entry?
I can't really address this because it wasn't what I was talking about, as I
pointed out previously.
>
> The bus monopoly would have fell without the need for antidiscrimination
> laws if the laws requiring discrimination were struck down and if the
> lawkeepers did their job or suffered the personal consequences of not doing so.
The effects of Jim Crow would still have been there without the laws, so
this example is really neither here nor there. I was talking about
government protection FROM racism, not local laws in FAVOR of them. You
wish to remove the laws AGAINST racism.
> > > > 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.
>
> Don't see it, sorry.
You didn't live through the 50's and 60's I take it.
>
> > 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.
>
> And I can only say that your understanding (of what a free market actually
> is) is flawed and we should agree to disagree.
Okay, actually read my paragraph (and preceeding sentence) above and
actually answer it this time rather than go with the best defense is a good
offense tactics.
And you are incorrect in your statement above. If you want to say that I'm
not really in favor of a *truly* free market, then you would have a leg to
stand on (at least I explained my reasons why). Don't tell me I don't
understand a truly free market when I haven't even addressed the issue. You
refuse to address the point and keep restating it in terms that are more
comfortable for you but not at all what I said. So, on that basis, yes, we
have to agree to disagree. But the Libertarian Party sticking its
collective head in the sand over this is its continued doom, so I'm not the
one being hurt by it.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> I think you raise some good points but I'm not sure how to proceed since we seem a ways a part. As with Shiri's post about working conditions, I am not going to claim that things are not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
