Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:42:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1377 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.)
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 individuals that didn't toe the line, but again, that was
going to happen anyway.
>
> 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.
The Supreme Court in effect backed up the Jim Crow laws - I don't know
whether to call that a failure of the rule of law, or that the law can be
simply dunderheaded. But yes, in the examples you cite, the rule of law
failed. Without it ingrained into the very government (at least at a local
level) it all would have ended sooner.
>
> 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.
If enough people are racist, it most certainly can survive, even thrive.
The federal government needed to be a lot more aggressive on the problem
something like a century ago - I'm not a great one on "states rights" when
it comes to civil liberties.
>
> 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.
One would hope. And on paper, what you say would seem to make sense. But
if enough people with power get together with the same racist agenda, then
you can see some evil come about that can wreck the very fabric of society.
One would like to think it couldn't happen in this day and age, at the
least. Libertarians don't believe that will happen, but blacks and other
minorities, after sad experience, generally don't agree. Libertarians need
to decide: they really are right, but need to show how; or they need to
realize that their collective life experiences aren't broad enough. I feel
the latter is the case, but even if the former, they aren't going to grow
beyond their current demographics unless they truly address the issue,
rather than glossing over it.
>
> 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
Kinda ignored the whole topic over the weekend, and wading back through it
is tedious since there seems to be this hostility trip on the part of
several parties that I just don't want to be bothered with. I think there
was a message that I'll refer to as the "party of principle" message that
you wrote that had some topics worth addressing. I'll respond to that one
if I can locate it (gosh, I hate it when strings get to the "dots" stage).
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
