Well, whitey isn’t always going to be the majority. So, maybe it’s for the best we already have the laws on the books, eh? Payback could be a bit…er, female dog.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s obviously implicit in most of the replies advocating “action!”[/quote]
No it isn’t - not every form of government action is “big government action”, unless , maybe you are an anarchist, and anarchists are idiots.
You desperately want to leap from a modest anti-discrimination statute that establishes liability for discriminattory practices to “the nanny state” - it ain’t there.
No, it’s an important distinction - just because I want the government to help fix one problem doesn’t mean I advocate that the government try and fix all problems, so you ought not imply such. It’d be false.
[quote]See, you “have been arguing that only certain priorities deserve intervention, and that because race is unique, it deserves this attention,” but the next guy takes that argument and extends it to his pet peeve and the next guy to his, and on and on and on we go, where we stop nobody knows!
If you could somehow give me some kind of divinely inspired assurance that it would STOP RIGHT THERE with racism and the card couldn’t be played again somewhere else I might just ride in your buggy with you and hold hands and sing “She’ll be coming around the mountain…” with you on our way to the picnic by the lake…but I am just too leery of expanding government power. I get all shaky and I start sweatin’ and I get in my “fight or flight” mood. I guess I read too much history. I never ever ever read about a government that gets bigger and bigger and bigger and yet Utopia still arrives.[/quote]
I share your concern, but I think the priority to equalize opportunity (to the extent we can through public policy) trumps that concern. And more besides, we have had anti-discrimination laws on the books for some time now, and as an empirical matter, there is no reason to believe that the expansion of government traces its growth because of the enactment of these laws.
There are civil liability statutes, not enactments of something like government entitlement programs.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, it’s an important distinction - just because I want the government to help fix one problem doesn’t mean I advocate that the government try and fix all problems, so you ought not imply such. It’d be false.
[/quote]
And if the libertarian cries wolf too many times, his cautions might not get a hearing when it really, really matters.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Look, I actually sympathize with your position and am a long, long, long ways from being a racist but I fear The Blob more than I fear those who seek to practice racism. And I think I am intellectually honest enough to say I would feel this way regardless of my skin color.[/quote]
It is less about skin colour and more about the level of threat faced. You live in whoop whoop. The government is a much greater threat to you than racist people.
To somebody living in downtown LA though racists are a much greater threat than the government.
wonder if anyone’s brought up the standard libertarian case for the Civil RIghts Act.
Namely, that the situation in the south wasn’t actually free association of business owners. The states enforced certain segregation laws. The police turned a blind eye to racial violence, including lynchings. Segregation was enforced by armed vigilantes with the tacit support of the government. It’s fair to say that Jim Crow was a (local) government regime with some voluntary participation. The federal government didn’t tamper with free association, it tampered with an already coercive system.
The corresponding idea is that if you dropped that portion of the Civil Rights Act, I doubt we’d return to the situation in the pre-1964 south. People just wouldn’t be interested in opening racially-discriminating businesses, not in large numbers. It would be a crazy guy here and there, who could be safely let alone. I don’t think repealing the law is at all an urgent matter, and I’m not advocating it, but it’s not the only thing holding back a tide of racism. We’d be okay without it, and keep the moral high ground in a sense; it’s better if racists are free, but irrelevant and silly.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t try and play that game that I don’t get out much. Psshhhht.
[/quote]
I’m not. Simply saying you don’t live in a bad area where your life is threatened by racists. There is a massive difference between visiting dangerous places and living in them. I have visited the slums of Rio but wouldn’t compare it to living there.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve literally been to almost every place The Man in Black just listed. In fact, I’d be willing to wager a year’s worth of protein powder that I’d been more places by the age of 23 than you’ve been in your lifetime even if you’re my age (almost 50). Including downtown L.A.
[/quote]
You probably have. I know I’m not foolish enough to take that bet. However I have been to some crime filled, racist places, and couldn’t imagine living there.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
wonder if anyone’s brought up the standard libertarian case for the Civil RIghts Act.
Namely, that the situation in the south wasn’t actually free association of business owners. The states enforced certain segregation laws. The police turned a blind eye to racial violence, including lynchings. Segregation was enforced by armed vigilantes with the tacit support of the government. It’s fair to say that Jim Crow was a (local) government regime with some voluntary participation. The federal government didn’t tamper with free association, it tampered with an already coercive system.
The corresponding idea is that if you dropped that portion of the Civil Rights Act, I doubt we’d return to the situation in the pre-1964 south. People just wouldn’t be interested in opening racially-discriminating businesses, not in large numbers. It would be a crazy guy here and there, who could be safely let alone. I don’t think repealing the law is at all an urgent matter, and I’m not advocating it, but it’s not the only thing holding back a tide of racism. We’d be okay without it, and keep the moral high ground in a sense; it’s better if racists are free, but irrelevant and silly.[/quote]
democrat = racist . . . 
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< People just wouldn’t be interested in opening racially-discriminating businesses, not in large numbers. It would be a crazy guy here and there, who could be safely let alone. <<<>>> it’s better if racists are free, but irrelevant and silly.[/quote]My contention is, though I’ve admitted it would be difficult to prove, that we would be witnessing a better result today had it been the case from the start that we crushed the racially coercive institutionalized system without the further step of coercing in the other direction. Thunderbolt does however introduce the weightiest argument against that position when he mentions the nearly helpless state of the southern black community at that time. Though that seems to more address something like affirmative action, which he says he doesn’t support, than whether somebody should be permitted to refuse service to someone based on race.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< An entire race was denied their civil rights and we suddenly liberated from the libertarians (heh) who held them as property. And there they were - uneducated, propertyless, largely despised - and thrown into society to “find their way” in the market. They had no reliabel means of integrating themselves into civil society and, though “free”, doors were shut to them. Yet we expected them to take advantage of their newfound freedom and rise to a level of material prosperity and security that the rest of America enjoyed.
We owed it to these folks to engineer a certain “playing field” in the market - to help provide an equality of opportunity that didn’t exist. It was never a panacea, but it was a “best efforts” to open some doors in “the market” and also establish that society would not publicly tolerate racism in practice. Was it perfect? Of course not. Nothing is. But the better question is - was it good? Yes, and it was just. >>>[/quote]
Like I said, there is weight here and it has needled at me when thinking about this. Could I trouble you for a quick rundown of what you have considered good and just, and, bad and overreaching?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Libertarians have made themselves a laughingstock, especially here at PWI - and now I have a handy poster as a reference guide. This is fantastic.[/quote]
Really? Because I see libertarianism growing at a very fast pace. Thats why the Republican party will be welcoming in Rand Paul and possibly Peter Schiff. The only thing I see dying is the Ultra Christian “conservative” who are really nothing more then democrat lite.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The Holy Market, peace be unto it, is not infallible. The state did what the market had yet to do. End of story. [/quote]
The Holy State, peace be unto it, is not infallible. The state did what the market had yet to do because the state carries the sword, i.e., might makes right. End of story. [/quote]
Let us not forget that the Holy state also had implace laws that made it so the free market could clean it out.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sometimes you need a dose of intervention now, to negate the need for much larger intervention later.[/quote]
So your a fascist?
Interest in libertarianism will hit a low ceiling, rebounding to obscurity. It’s a social-economic system that makes zero sense. It doesn’t defend the traditional family, nor the values necessary for the it’s cultivation in society. Social conservatism is the only answer to a growing nanny state. Without it, fertility rates would/will continue to drop. More and more elderly will have 0-1 adult children to care for them in their golden years. Now, the uneducated poor will reliably churn out kiddos, of course. However, with few fathers around, and the socio-economic status of poor single women being what it is, more children will grow up feral in hopeless poverty.
So, demand will continue to be very strong for a tutelary state. Actually, it’s going to get much, much, stronger. The nanny state IS the large extended family of yesteryear. And, you just don’t screw with someone’s family.
Neither Ron or Rand Paul will ever be allowed near entitlement programs. We no longer have the ‘Ultra Christian conservative’ population which makes the free market–minus expansive safety nets–even possible. The death of social conservatism will put the nail in the coffin of fiscal libertarianism. The best libertarians will be able to hope for is neo-liberal economic policies in the market, with a large entitlement state attached to it. Small government is dead (without social conservatism).
In fact, I betcha Libertarians will increasingly align with the Democrats in the next couple of decades. The small government mantra will be cast aside for “Good Government.” Market neo-liberalism resigned to exist alongside a variety of generous entitlements. Liberaltarianism will be the trend to watch.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sometimes you need a dose of intervention now, to negate the need for much larger intervention later.[/quote]
So your a fascist?[/quote]
Yeah. I’m a fascist for supporting intervention against widespread segregationist society. Have I ever discussed my role model here? Musolini?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sometimes you need a dose of intervention now, to negate the need for much larger intervention later.[/quote]
So your a fascist?[/quote]
Yeah. I’m a fascist for supporting intervention against widespread segregationist society. Have I ever discussed my role model here? Musolini?
[/quote]
You fail to mention that segregation was a direct result of government creating laws to enforece what you are now giving them credit for getting rid of. When you take a step back and look at the whole story what you are trying to give them credit for actually makes no sense.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Interest in libertarianism will hit a low ceiling, rebounding to obscurity. It’s a social-economic system that makes zero sense. It doesn’t defend the traditional family, nor the values necessary for the it’s cultivation in society. Social conservatism is the only answer to a growing nanny state. Without it, fertility rates would/will continue to drop. More and more elderly will have 0-1 adult children to care for them in their golden years. Now, the uneducated poor will reliably churn out kiddos, of course. However, with few fathers around, and the socio-economic status of poor single women being what it is, more children will grow up feral in hopeless poverty.
So, demand will continue to be very strong for a tutelary state. Actually, it’s going to get much, much, stronger. The nanny state IS the large extended family of yesteryear. And, you just don’t screw with someone’s family.
Neither Ron or Rand Paul will ever be allowed near entitlement programs. We no longer have the ‘Ultra Christian conservative’ population which makes the free market–minus expansive safety nets–even possible. The death of social conservatism will put the nail in the coffin of fiscal libertarianism. The best libertarians will be able to hope for is neo-liberal economic policies in the market, with a large entitlement state attached to it. Small government is dead (without social conservatism).
In fact, I betcha Libertarians will increasingly align with the Democrats in the next couple of decades. The small government mantra will be cast aside for “Good Government.” Market neo-liberalism resigned to exist alongside a variety of generous entitlements. Liberaltarianism will be the trend to watch.[/quote]
So we are free to do as the christian conservatives say? Sounds like freedom to me.
Actually Libertarianism won’t be a party but more of a movement like the progressives. We will take over the GOP and there is nothing you can do about it, because the only thing you hate worse then a libertarian is a democrat. And I can’t speak for all libertarians but I have no problem checking Obama’s name at the voting box next election if I don’t get someone I like. A social conservative should be conservative to the constitution hence what a Conservative is supposed to mean.
And about your rants about entitlements, entitlements are going to get cut because we are broke. What happened in greece is going to happen here. Unless of course you are suggesting they fire up the printing press to pay for it? Your social conservatism is not going to stop the entitlement process, only individualism will stop it.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sometimes you need a dose of intervention now, to negate the need for much larger intervention later.[/quote]
So your a fascist?[/quote]
Yeah. I’m a fascist for supporting intervention against widespread segregationist society. Have I ever discussed my role model here? Musolini?
[/quote]
You fail to mention that segregation was a direct result of government creating laws to enforece what you are now giving them credit for getting rid of. When you take a step back and look at the whole story what you are trying to give them credit for actually makes no sense.[/quote]
Perhaps you should rethink this.
Like…segregation existed as a tenet of racism; it was institutionalized by a powerful majority, using government and law as instruments to enforce its bigotry. The governments created what the majority of their voters directed or in which they consented or acquiesced.
Sort of changes one’s view of history doesn’t it? Sort of more like reality, rather than the way you imagine reality must be.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Interest in libertarianism will hit a low ceiling, rebounding to obscurity. It’s a social-economic system that makes zero sense. It doesn’t defend the traditional family, nor the values necessary for the it’s cultivation in society. Social conservatism is the only answer to a growing nanny state. Without it, fertility rates would/will continue to drop. More and more elderly will have 0-1 adult children to care for them in their golden years. Now, the uneducated poor will reliably churn out kiddos, of course. However, with few fathers around, and the socio-economic status of poor single women being what it is, more children will grow up feral in hopeless poverty.
So, demand will continue to be very strong for a tutelary state. Actually, it’s going to get much, much, stronger. The nanny state IS the large extended family of yesteryear. And, you just don’t screw with someone’s family.
Neither Ron or Rand Paul will ever be allowed near entitlement programs. We no longer have the ‘Ultra Christian conservative’ population which makes the free market–minus expansive safety nets–even possible. The death of social conservatism will put the nail in the coffin of fiscal libertarianism. The best libertarians will be able to hope for is neo-liberal economic policies in the market, with a large entitlement state attached to it. Small government is dead (without social conservatism).
In fact, I betcha Libertarians will increasingly align with the Democrats in the next couple of decades. The small government mantra will be cast aside for “Good Government.” Market neo-liberalism resigned to exist alongside a variety of generous entitlements. Liberaltarianism will be the trend to watch.[/quote]
So we are free to do as the christian conservatives say? Sounds like freedom to me.
Actually Libertarianism won’t be a party but more of a movement like the progressives. We will take over the GOP and there is nothing you can do about it, because the only thing you hate worse then a libertarian is a democrat.[/quote]
Nah. I’d vote Democrat before I’d ever vote for a libertarian. I realize now that Democrats at least understand the reality of social liberalism (unlike the the libertarian). In the face of this reality, they deal with the breakdown of the traditional family with security provided by the social programs. Yes, I supsect even those who won’t admit it aloud, know it to be true in their heart of hearts.
Oh yes, entitlements will be cut to some degree. Mostly through overdue reforms in SS and Medicare (before UHC is adopted). But, if you think it’s going to resemble anything like a libertarian dream, you’re…well, dreaming. It’s going to be more like liberals realizing they have to tighten their belts than the “take a chain saw to 'em and then phase 'em out” dream of the libertarian. And after the belt tightening, they’ll finally win the argument for Universal Health Care. Oh, and get ready for big tax raises/VAT taxes. Taxes will make up a big part of the solvency solution. Tax raises are going to be sold much easier than “Well, we need to cut your Medicare and SS…hey, put down the pitch forks!” Don’t confuse the reality of needing to control spending with a coming repeal of robust social programs. In fact, it’s going to be the very argument that UHC rides into reality on, controlling costs.