Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:35:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1241 times
|
| |
|
|
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 better now than they were then, just that
the path that got us from there to here was not the only path that could
have been taken.
My point here WRT racism is that it was indeed at least partly government
sponsored, and that companies that wanted to compete on a different basis
had very high barriers to entry (torching businesses that would not go along
with informal racist practices was not unheard of. I call that a high
barrier to entry.)
If the rule of law was actually in effect in the south and elsewhere to
where boycotts and strikes were not met with armed government thugs I
suspect that the demise of institutional racism would have been sooner.
Ditto for things like the Pullman strike. In both these cases what failed,
at the core, was the rule of law. Time and time again when you look into
things you find that law was used as a weapon against those that worked for
peaceful change, whether it be by trying to set up competing enterprises or
by publicity, or by peaceful assembly, or by peacably trying to exercise
rights such as the ballot.
Stamp out those egregious violations of civil liberty and punish the
violators severely and racism would have taken care of itself. It's a non
starter of an idea, it's so stupid on the face of it to think that way, and
it cannot compete in the market of ideas against tolerance and honesty and
openness unless the market is rigged.
That does not change my assertion that I as a seller or buyer should be able
to choose who to do business with based on whatever criteria I choose. In a
free market I will be punished should I make foolish restrictions.
You can take that as you choose, if you want to see it as evasion, that's
OK, but I really think I'm trying to get to the fundamental principle. I
won't be insulted if you inadvertantly misinterpret what I say because I
wasn't clear enough, please feel free to ask for clarification and I will
gladly give it if I am able.
On the topic of the LP's membership I posted another post which you might
not have seen asking what exactly can be done about it without compromising
principles. I honestly don't know the answer.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) But I am sure that there would be many who would be willing to pay a premium to send their kids to a "whites only" school or use other whites only services. With your text above, we return to the LP's dilemma. The LP is made up of a membership (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) Yes, the racism was at least party government sponsored. But I think it is a mistake to blame some government bogeyman rather than admitting that it was a reflection of the electorate. And yes, there was pressure put on businesses and (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) I pointed out the real difference between your two examples - you consistently refuse to address it. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
