PDA

View Full Version : Why I'm Not a Libertarian Anymore



sclimb
11-22-2015, 10:48 AM
For libertarianism to work it requires the majority of us be responsible, respectful adults which very clearly isn't the case, any more than it would work in Afgnanistan or any other place where giving them democracy means they vote for sharia touting hatebeards

I used to be a libertarian until I came to the same conclusion. Listen to Rand Paul arguing that private institutions should be exempt from the Civil Rights Act:

92M3mSKbwR4

In a perfect world, tolerating private businesses racially discriminating would be ok because most businesses wouldn't do it. If you're black and a grocery store says no blacks allowed, you can just go to the other grocery store. That would be the libertarian free-market solution.

However, the American people were so evil that EVERY grocery store said no blacks allowed. Libertarian policies on race allowed evil to flourish.

A libertarian would say the government can only enforce laws with violence and by pointing guns at people.. In the real world, that's actually what it took:

For non-US miscers, these pictures are the national guard escorting black students to class because a lot of the white people wanted to hurt or kill them.

https://2e35f3d7efa41f6a08b9-6590e85903d1168a261ce2e01f6fe2c5.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.c om/1c2e407b9c6cc5a8eb126873118b69be.jpg

http://sociologytoolbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Screen-Shot-2013-09-01-at-2.38.57-PM-300x231.png

Surprisingly, these people weren't good enough for libertarianism. So, they needed some (liberal) authoritarianism to keep them in line.

That my ideology as a libertarian would have caused millions of people to needlessly suffer made me no longer a libertarian. I still lean libertarian on most policies but I'm not an ideologue anymore.

No one ideology is 100% correct and being an ideologue is really no different than believing a religious book 100% to the letter. If you find yourself supporting every tenant of a certain ideology, question yourself.

People are not always good enough to be trusted with freedom. Much of the time, people do need to be told what they can and can't do even if it doesn't directly hurt someone else. And if they disagree, sometimes you do need men with guns to violently put them in check.

adamsz
11-22-2015, 10:53 AM
Great post.

sclimb
11-22-2015, 10:56 AM
Here are other real-world results of pure libertarianism:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/x2Iwa9LeuFM/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/timeline/images/jimcrow.jpg

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-67734a9f8c92210dfa7cac910080ea1e?convert_to_webp=t rue

TheReminder
11-22-2015, 11:06 AM
"Libertarianism leads to racism, and racism is bad, so libertarianism is wrong."

First, check your premises. Is racism bad? Why or why not? How do you know? How could you find out?

Secondly, let's expand your original thought process:

"Giving people freedom would allow them to freely associate in ways counter to cultural Marxism, so we should take their freedom away and FORCE them to live around, work with and hire segments of the population that are compatible with cultural Marxism. This is more moral than freedom."

This thinking is not only dumb, but evil. You really should check your premises. Is racism really that bad? Are you going to give up on liberty simply because it does not lead to Communism?

HubertL
11-22-2015, 11:16 AM
I think racism is bad because it prevents nationalism. Racism will always exist on a single basis case but to promote the idea of "structural racism" only causes divisiveness and dampens nationalism. If people could see beyond an overarching skin color difference and instead unite base on where they are from, we would have less "race riots"

and being a libertarian is dumb because it's based on naive realism - the premise that people are rational and think like you.

Obviously liberals are set out to destroy America through their backward thinking ( see: climate change is the biggest threat and causes global jihad) so one cannot be complacent in their political beliefs

sclimb
11-22-2015, 11:17 AM
"Libertarianism leads to racism, and racism is bad, so libertarianism is wrong."

First, check your premises. Is racism bad? Why or why not? How do you know? How could you find out?

Secondly, let's expand your original thought process:

"Giving people freedom would allow them to freely associate in ways counter to cultural Marxism, so we should take their freedom away and FORCE them to live around, work with and hire segments of the population that are compatible with cultural Marxism. This is more moral than freedom."

This thinking is not only dumb, but evil. You really should check your premises. Is racism really that bad? Are you going to give up on liberty simply because it does not lead to Communism?

If you don't think that the racism shown in those pictures is unquestionably bad then this conversation is over. There is no common ground for us to find.

Racism itself is just a scientific question. It's not inherently good or bad.

What those people were doing was bad and they needed to be stopped. If they wouldn't do it peacefully, violent force from the government's monopoly on it was needed. And, in real life, it did fix the problem that libertarian laws allowed to happen.

linkherooftime
11-22-2015, 11:20 AM
so to you authoritarianism is better than freedom?

terrysorange
11-22-2015, 11:21 AM
As you said, the issue is that no one ideology can be completely and solely sufficient. Any successful society has to incorporate elements of both capitalism and socialism, elements of both libertarianism and authoritarianism. None of these anarchist morons have ever been able to give us evidence or reason to think otherwise.

sclimb
11-22-2015, 11:27 AM
Obviously liberals are set out to destroy America through their backward thinking ( see: climate change is the biggest threat and causes global jihad) so one cannot be complacent in their political beliefs

I'm sure you're being sarcastic but I'm going to reply seriously because this is actually a very good example of ideology:

Man-made climate change, for most Republicans, is an example of an ideological belief. A political belief on climate change is ridiculous. Climate is not a political question anymore than evolution or the age of the earth is. Climate change is a scientific question that scientists overwhelmingly agree on.

By disagreeing with those scientists, you're saying that you know more about science than most scientists.

Yes, I do realize that I'm using a logical fallacy against you. It's a logical fallacy that usually results in correct analysis though. Arguing to authority is only considered a fallacy because it doesn't work 100% of the time. Climate change is a topic that people get PhDs in. So, having a logical opinion on it is something that both of us are unqualified to do. That necessitates using the best logical fallacy to have an opinion.

How ridiculous is it that an answer to a scientific question is divided among party lines? The political divide should only be what to do about it.

sclimb
11-22-2015, 11:29 AM
so to you authoritarianism is better than freedom?

In many cases, it is because of the reasons I outlined. Just like kids, adults aren't always responsible enough to trust with freedom. Racial segregation throughout the South is a clear example of that from recent history.

HubertL
11-22-2015, 11:29 AM
This would be an example of an ideological belief. A political belief on climate change is ridiculous. Climate is not a political question anymore than evolution or the age of the earth is. Climate change is a scientific question that scientists overwhelmingly agree on.

By disagreeing with those scientists, you're saying that you know more about science than most scientists.

Yes, I do realize that I'm using a logical fallacy against you. It's a logical fallacy that usually results in correct analysis though. Arguing to authority is only considered a fallacy because it doesn't work 100% of the time. Climate change is a topic that people get PhDs in. So, having a logical opinion on it is something that both of us are unqualified to do. That necessitates using the best logical fallacy to have an opinion.

you spent all that time writing a novel just to prove to me that climate change is real?

nowhere in my post did i saw global warming was fake.

all i said was that (assuming ur left leaning) that one of your presidential candidates said that the attack on paris was because of the f*king weather

sclimb
11-22-2015, 11:34 AM
you spent all that time writing a novel just to prove to me that climate change is real?

nowhere in my post did i saw global warming was fake.

all i said was that (assuming ur left leaning) that one of your presidential candidates said that the attack on paris was because of the f*king weather

I know. I edited my post to make that clear.

Do you have a link for that quote though? It has to be taken out of context. I can't believe anyone would say that. Then again, we also have candidates who believe.. who am I kidding, I'll say it: Ben Carson.

HubertL
11-22-2015, 11:45 AM
I know. I edited my post to make that clear.

Do you have a link for that quote though? It has to be taken out of context. I can't believe anyone would say that. Then again, we also have candidates who believe.. who am I kidding, I'll say it: Ben Carson.

Republicans know the world is thousands of year old and of course there will be changes in the climate. We just think that things like foreign policy, unemployment, homelessness, and other topics are far more important than stupid weather

it also doesn't help that the obama administration gives grants to scientists who then come out with studies on climate change. What kind of scientist who was just given a grant for a certain thing wouldnt't create studies to show it?

and for my statement: did you even watch the democratic debate? I'm a republican and even i did. Shame on you.

ojFfyQFIINc

cashinout
11-22-2015, 11:54 AM
lol what, you can be a libertarian and still believe in regulation that prevents discrimination against things people can't control

nothing is black and white, why would libertarianism be any different

sclimb
11-22-2015, 11:55 AM
Republicans know the world is thousands of year old and of course there will be changes in the climate. We just think that things like foreign policy, unemployment, homelessness, and other topics are far more important than stupid weather

it also doesn't help that the obama administration gives grants to scientists who then come out with studies on climate change. What kind of scientist who was just given a grant for a certain thing wouldnt't create studies to show it?

and for my statement: did you even watch the democratic debate? I'm a republican and even i did. Shame on you.

ojFfyQFIINc

No, they're pretty boring. I do watch the Republican debates though because they're entertaining. Between Donald slamming everyone on stage and Carson putting on the crazy, it's a blast.

If the Democratic debates were more like this, I'd watch:
pfmwGAd1L-o

chaunce54
11-22-2015, 11:56 AM
The smart businessman would be the one to allow them, and then have the monopoly on all of their business. Other businessman would realize the folly of exclusion and reverse course to try to increase their own sales in that market segment. Consumer activists would then begin boycotting businesses with these exclusion policies, ultimately forcing them out of business. Free market, FTW!

sclimb
11-22-2015, 11:56 AM
lol what, you can be a libertarian and still believe in regulation that prevents discrimination against things people can't control

nothing is black and white, why would libertarianism be any different

Libertarianism is an ideology. So, no, you can't. You're someone who leans libertarian.

sclimb
11-22-2015, 11:57 AM
The smart businessman would be the one to allow them, and then have the monopoly on all of their business. Other businessman would realize the folly of exclusion and reverse course to try to increase their own sales in that market segment. Consumer activists would then begin boycotting businesses with these exclusion policies, ultimately forcing them out of business. Free market, FTW!
I sense the sarcasm but here's a serious reply because I have no sense of humor and no one would want to drink a beer with me:

According to libertarian ideology, this is correct. In the real world, it's not.

chaunce54
11-22-2015, 12:00 PM
I sense the sarcasm but here's a serious reply because I have no sense of humor and no one would want to drink a beer with me:

According to libertarian ideology, this is correct. In the real world, it's not.

I guess you haven't noticed how businesses have been catering to Spanish speaking consumers over the past 10 years or more since they are the fastest growing market segment in the country. Press 1 for English...

Stizzel
11-22-2015, 12:01 PM
I used to be a libertarian until I came to the same conclusion. Listen to Rand Paul arguing that private institutions should be exempt from the Civil Rights Act:

92M3mSKbwR4

In a perfect world, tolerating private businesses racially discriminating would be ok because most businesses wouldn't do it. If you're black and a grocery store says no blacks allowed, you can just go to the other grocery store. That would be the libertarian free-market solution.

However, the American people were so evil that EVERY grocery store said no blacks allowed. Libertarian policies on race allowed evil to flourish.

A libertarian would say the government can only enforce laws with violence and by pointing guns at people.. In the real world, that's actually what it took:

For non-US miscers, these pictures are the national guard escorting black students to class because a lot of the white people wanted to hurt or kill them.

https://2e35f3d7efa41f6a08b9-6590e85903d1168a261ce2e01f6fe2c5.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.c om/1c2e407b9c6cc5a8eb126873118b69be.jpg

http://sociologytoolbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Screen-Shot-2013-09-01-at-2.38.57-PM-300x231.png

Surprisingly, these people weren't good enough for libertarianism. So, they needed some (liberal) authoritarianism to keep them in line.

That my ideology as a libertarian would have caused millions of people to needlessly suffer made me no longer a libertarian. I still lean libertarian on most policies but I'm not an ideologue anymore.

No one ideology is 100% correct and being an ideologue is really no different than believing a religious book 100% to the letter. If you find yourself supporting every tenant of a certain ideology, question yourself.

People are not always good enough to be trusted with freedom. Much of the time, people do need to be told what they can and can't do even if it doesn't directly hurt someone else. And if they disagree, sometimes you do need men with guns to violently put them in check.

Government is made up of people.

You're very stupid tbh. Rejecting individualism because of jim crow laws lololol

sclimb
11-22-2015, 12:05 PM
Republicans know the world is thousands of year old and of course there will be changes in the climate. We just think that things like foreign policy, unemployment, homelessness, and other topics are far more important than stupid weather

it also doesn't help that the obama administration gives grants to scientists who then come out with studies on climate change. What kind of scientist who was just given a grant for a certain thing wouldnt't create studies to show it?

and for my statement: did you even watch the democratic debate? I'm a republican and even i did. Shame on you.

ojFfyQFIINc

I just watched the Bernie Sanders video and understand his point. Climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels. Our reliance on fossil fuels is what led to Bush wanting to invade Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century -- proof). That led to ISIS.

What Bernie is saying (in a stupid way) is that relying on a dwindling resource creates competition for that resource. Competition for resources creates conflict. Conflicts create terrorism. As the future rolls on and this resource becomes more scarce, competition for it will increase. Increased competition for oil -- > more terrorism.

Bernie Sanders is smart. But he's like Ron Paul. He's really, really bad at talking.

sclimb
11-22-2015, 12:10 PM
Government is made up of people.

You're very stupid tbh. Rejecting individualism because of jim crow laws lololol

My post is talking about the portion of the Civil Rights Act that pertains to private entities. That's where the schism with libertarian ideology occurs. A libertarian can support the act pertaining to public entities, as Rand Paul does.

Jim Crow laws pertained to public entities. The pictures of the segregated school were an example for the point of violent force being necessary to end segregation in general..

I'm not being stupid. You're being autistically specific in your thinking process.

sclimb
11-22-2015, 12:13 PM
I guess you haven't noticed how businesses have been catering to Spanish speaking consumers over the past 10 years or more since they are the fastest growing market segment in the country. Press 1 for English...

Are you seriously comparing 2015 America to the 1950s deep south?

You should talk to some people from the South who were alive then. My entire (white) family is from Mississippi and Arkansas and the stories they tell me sound like a horrible racist dystopia.

forcexdistance
11-22-2015, 12:22 PM
you spent all that time writing a novel just to prove to me that climate change is real?

nowhere in my post did i saw global warming was fake.

all i said was that (assuming ur left leaning) that one of your presidential candidates said that the attack on paris was because of the f*king weather

He did not say that.

And yes, one the biggest threats the US and the world face now is man made climate change. And yes climate change can exacerbate and foment terrorism. The Pentagon says the same thing.

Whether one can call it the biggest threat is another matter. Depends on how far out one looks and what the criteria is for "threat".



But going back to the subject of the OP. Yes "libertarianism" sounds great. It has the word "liberty" in it. But it's not that simple. Government is good. Far from restricting rights, it enables a safer, more productive and simply a better world to live in.

6:30 a.m. You are awakened by your clock radio. You know it is actually 6:30 because the National Institute of Standards and Technology keeps the official time. And you can listen to your favorite radio station only because the Federal Communications Commission brings organization and coherence to our vast telecommunications system. It ensures, for example, that radio stations do not overlap and that stations signals are not interfered with by the numerous other devices – cell phones, satellite television, wireless computers, etc. – whose signals crowd our nation’s airwaves.
6:35 a.m. Like 17 million other Americans, you have asthma. But as you get out of bed you notice that you are breathing freely this morning. This is thanks in part to government clean air laws that reduce the air pollution that would otherwise greatly worsen your condition.
6:38 a.m. You go into the kitchen for breakfast. You pour some water into your coffeemaker. You simply take for granted that this water is safe to drink. But in fact you count on your city water department to constantly monitor the quality of your water and to immediately take measures to correct any potential problems with this vital resource.
6:39 a.m. You flip the switch on the coffee maker. There is no short in the outlet or in the electrical line and there is no resulting fire in your house. Why? Because when your house was being built, the electrical system had to be inspected to make sure it was properly installed – a service provided by your local government. And it was installed by an electrician who was licensed by your state government to ensure his competence and your safety.
6:45 a.m. You sit down to breakfast with your family. You are having eggs – a food that brings with it the possibility of salmonella poisoning, a serious food-borne illness affecting tens of thousands of Americans every year. But the chance of you getting sick from these eggs has now been greatly reduced by a recently passed series of strict federal rules that apply to egg producers.
7:00 a.m. You go into your newly renovated bathroom – one of a number of amenities that you enjoy in your house. But the fact that you can legally own your own house is something made possible by government. Think about this: “ownership” and “private property” are not things that exist in nature. These are legal constructs: things created by laws that are passed and enforced by government. You couldn’t even buy your home without a system of commercial laws concerning contracts and a government that ensures that sales contracts are enforced. So the fact that you live in your own home is, in part, a benefit of government and the rule of law.
7:01 a.m. Government also helps you own your house in more than the legal sense. On a more practical level, the federal government actually gives you money every year to help pay for your house. It’s called a mortgage interest tax deduction and it is one of the larger benefit programs run by the federal government – amounting to over $60 billion dollars a year. You can also deduct any real estate taxes you pay. These largely overlooked subsidy programs have enabled millions of people to buy their first home or to move up to a larger home than they could afford otherwise.
7:02 a.m. Back in the bathroom. You use the toilet and flush it. Your local government then takes care of transporting this waste, treating it, and disposing of it in an environmentally responsible manner – all without a second thought by you.
7:20 a.m. As you are getting dressed, a glance outside the window shows some ominous clouds. You check the weather on your TV. All these weather forecasts are made possible by information gathered and analyzed by the National Weather Service, a government agency. Every day, on your behalf, it takes in 190,000 weather observations from surface stations, 2,700 from ships, 115,000 from aircraft, 18,000 for buoys, 250,000 from balloons, and 140 million from satellites – all just to help you plan what to wear and make sure you don’t get stuck in a snow storm. And oh yes, this agency may save your life with its hurricane and tornado warnings.

NVious
11-22-2015, 12:25 PM
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/libertarian.jpg

Businesses should be free to hire/fire and serve whoever they please, in the day and age of the internet viral news stories, things get righted anyways.

That said, Libertarians should not be "tolerant" to extremist political positions that infringe on what they hold to be of the highest value, <- That tends to be their Achilles heal.

sclimb
11-22-2015, 12:41 PM
Businesses should be free to hire/fire and serve whoever they please, in the day and age of the internet viral news stories, things get righted anyways.


If, in an imaginary, irrational world where every business, for some reason, had a policy to not hire NVious, would you accept your fate as an unemployed second-class citizen forever or would you feel differently about this?

TheReminder
11-22-2015, 12:48 PM
If you don't think that the racism shown in those pictures is unquestionably bad then this conversation is over.

I think racism is good, moral and not only to be tolerated but encouraged, especially if it's by whites against everyone else.

I guess that makes for the end of this conversation. Shame you can't look beyond your moral outrage to ask yourself whether or not you should even be feeling moral outrage in the first place.

Apeus
11-22-2015, 12:50 PM
However, the American people were so evil that EVERY grocery store said no blacks allowed.



So where did black people get their food from if "EVERY" grocery store said no blacks allowed?

sclimb
11-22-2015, 12:54 PM
I think racism is good, moral and not only to be tolerated but encouraged, especially if it's by whites against everyone else.

I guess that makes for the end of this conversation. Shame you can't look beyond your moral outrage to ask yourself whether or not you should even be feeling moral outrage in the first place.

Hmm you're right. Should I discriminate against my mother or my father?

EDIT: I'm an idiot. The non-white one, duh!

sclimb
11-22-2015, 12:55 PM
So where did black people get their food from if "EVERY" grocery store said no blacks allowed?
The one with hyperbole.

Fahnestock
11-22-2015, 12:58 PM
If, in an imaginary, irrational world where every business, for some reason, had a policy to not hire NVious, would you accept your fate as an unemployed second-class citizen forever or would you feel differently about this?

If this imaginary world existed, what regulatory standards would be necessary to enforce "fairness" in business practices? Every business owner large or small, including average citizens who contract out kids to mow their lawns, forced to relinquish HR duties to a government created entity to ensure "equality"? Mind control devices implanted in business owners to find out if they passed on an application for business reasons and not personal? A bureaucrat assigned to every business to ensure compliance, along with multiple government created "independent" review boards to conduct appeals?

sclimb
11-22-2015, 01:04 PM
If this imaginary world existed, what regulatory standards would be necessary to enforce "fairness" in business practices? Every business owner large or small, including average citizens who contract out kids to mow their lawns, forced to relinquish HR duties to a government created entity to ensure "equality"? Mind control devices implanted in business owners to find out if they passed on an application for business reasons and not personal? A bureaucrat assigned to every business to ensure compliance, along with multiple government created "independent" review boards to conduct appeals?

I'd add another government department, and bingo. Mind control? I like it.

chaunce54
11-22-2015, 01:09 PM
The one with hyperbole.

So you're whole argument is based on hyperbole, yet we are supposed to take it as definitive evidence that Libertarianism doesn't work.

Seems legit.

TheReminder
11-22-2015, 01:15 PM
Hmm you're right. Should I discriminate against my mother or my father?

EDIT: I'm an idiot. The non-white one, duh!

Yep! You got it!

For best results though I strongly suggest a vasectomy.

sclimb
11-22-2015, 01:16 PM
So you're whole argument is based on hyperbole, yet we are supposed to take it as definitive evidence that Libertarianism doesn't work.

Seems legit.

I'm not writing a college thesis man. So yeah, I'm going to use hyperbole and other figures of speech that aren't meant to be taken as literal.

Stizzel
11-22-2015, 01:25 PM
My post is talking about the portion of the Civil Rights Act that pertains to private entities. That's where the schism with libertarian ideology occurs. A libertarian can support the act pertaining to public entities, as Rand Paul does.

Jim Crow laws pertained to public entities. The pictures of the segregated school were an example for the point of violent force being necessary to end segregation in general..

I'm not being stupid. You're being autistically specific in your thinking process.

Rand Paul is not a libertarian :rolleyes:

Jesus you are slow. Thank you for no longer calling yourself a libertarian.

sclimb
11-22-2015, 01:38 PM
Rand Paul is not a libertarian :rolleyes:

Jesus you are slow. Thank you for no longer calling yourself a libertarian.

He does have a lot of libertarian positions and his stance on the Civil Rights Act is one of them. I campaigned for his father in 2008 and 2012, and follow the ron paul forums daily. So, I'm pretty aware of Rand's ideas.

Why do you keep name-calling? That's the second post in a row where you've tried to insult me.

Apeus
11-22-2015, 01:52 PM
The one with hyperbole.


Oh, so there were places for blacks to grocery shop.

Who created these shops? Were they ran by the government?

TheReminder
11-22-2015, 01:59 PM
He does have a lot of libertarian positions and his stance on the Civil Rights Act is one of them. I campaigned for his father in 2008 and 2012, and follow the ron paul forums daily. So, I'm pretty aware of Rand's ideas.

Why do you keep name-calling? That's the second post in a row where you've tried to insult me.

"I feel it's subjectively wrong therefore it is, in fact, objectively bad and incorrect! Why are you asking me for proof, you dumb jerks? STAWP CALLING ME NAMES :( :( :("

ONtop888
11-22-2015, 02:04 PM
Libertarianism is an ideology. So, no, you can't. You're someone who leans libertarian.
Libertarianism is a set of principles that form an ideology. You are right to imply that most people lean towards a certain ideology but don't necessarily agree with ALL of the principles, but you are dead wrong to say that NO ONE CAN BE A LIBERTARIAN. Some people believe and adhere to every principle of an ideology, they are called....ideologues.

NVious
11-22-2015, 02:06 PM
If, in an imaginary, irrational world where every business, for some reason, had a policy to not hire NVious, would you accept your fate as an unemployed second-class citizen forever or would you feel differently about this?

Your premise assumes something very fallacious and impractical:

That EVERYONE actively WANTS to discriminate

Do you know how much affirmative action and cuckhold SJW who LOVE "minorities" exists in this world today?

Even in your question:
Assuming that there is something peculiar about me that makes me undesirable, it must also be apparent in my parents, therefore they are either idiots for bringing me into the world or they are successful entrepreneurs.

In any case, worst comes to worse...since you haven't changed the timeline, internet exists therefore I can create my own business/company and guess what buddy boy? Since under your guise of "discrimination" there must be some identifiable trait, I can merely hide my identity online and run all sorts of businesses, I can even start businesses SUPPORTING my own discrimination since in your world people seem pretty hell bent against me, so I will just use this to profit.

Ffs, in this world I can just use Marxists tactics like Mizzou/Anita Sarkisian/other popular feminists (retards) and open a gofundmn.

But as I said your premise is retarded and I'm sure you were salivating at the mouth to jump to an even more retarded conclusion, unfortunately that's not gonna happen today.

sclimb
11-22-2015, 02:18 PM
"I feel it's subjectively wrong therefore it is, in fact, objectively bad and incorrect! Why are you asking me for proof, you dumb jerks? STAWP CALLING ME NAMES :( :( :("

I could call him names too.. but that would just lead to a flame war. This thread is a safe space of mine.

TheReminder
11-22-2015, 02:26 PM
This thread is a safe space

I called it, you're a communist.

Your only reason for ever liking libertarianism was because you thought it would lead to secular humanist communist goals such as Equality (tm) between the races, classes and genders.

You jumped ship once you found out that libertarianism leads to LIBERTY instead of communism.

"Oh no, they might use their freedom to do something other than what I would otherwise force them to do! That's very problematic!"

ZzBrahh
11-22-2015, 03:15 PM
actually it was government that started the problem.......


Jim Crow laws were state and local laws enforcing racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued in force until 1965




racism ended in the private sector because most of american society was not racist anymore


a racist business in today's society would either fold up because no one would tolerate it or, a black person would open one up in its place and it would thrive

sclimb
11-22-2015, 03:20 PM
actually it was government that started the problem.......


Jim Crow laws were state and local laws enforcing racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued in force until 1965




racism ended in the private sector because most of american society was not racist anymore



Racism ended in the private sector because of the Civil Rights Act. Jim Crow laws regulated government establishments. Private establishments could choose to discriminate or not to discriminate.

Almost all of them chose to discriminate until they were forced not to by the federal government and its complete monopoly on violent enforcement.



a racist business in today's society would either fold up because no one would tolerate it or, a black person would open one up in its place and it would thrive[/quote]

Today, yes. 1950, no. Remember -- banks wouldn't give loans to blacks back then to open a business either.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing the Civil Right Act repealed today because I think our society has matured enough to be able to handle the freedom to be racially discriminate without creating an entire subsociety of millions of second-class citizens.

TheReminder
11-22-2015, 03:22 PM
a racist business in today's society would either fold up because no one would tolerate it or, a black person would open one up in its place and it would thrive

This is a lie.

In this man's case, they actually had to BEGIN using racism just to SAVE their business!

https://www.reddit.com/comments/du0rw/iama_restaurant_owner_who_saved_his_business_by/


My wife, who has been a bleeding-heart liberal her whole life, told me in private that the absolute worst part of her job was dealing with black diners.

(...)

She told me if we could just get rid of them, the place would actually be a joy to work at.

I've been in the restaurant business a long time, so this wasn't news to me, but to hear it from my wife, and later confirmed by my daughter... it had a big impact. I've never accepted any racial slurs in our household, and certainly not in my restaurant. I always taught my kids to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and tried to do the right thing in spite of the sometimes overwhelming evidence right in front of me. But right then and there, I and my wife started planning ways to keep black people from eating at our restaurant.

(...)

They would scream bloody murder when they saw the new prices on the menu, and often storm out of the place, not knowing that this was pretty much our plan.

We took a lot of other steps, changing the music, we took fried chicken off the menu, added a dress code that forbade baggy pants and athletic gear.

(...)

And it worked! We managed to hang in through the rough times. It's been almost two years since we started running the business this way, and we're doing great, even better than we were before!

I noticed as soon as the blacks started to leave, our regulars started coming back. Complaints dropped to almost nothing, our staff were happier, and the online reviews have been very positive. My kids are back in school, and my wife seems ten years younger, she's proud of her work and comes in happy every day.

I encourage you to read this man's experience in its entirety. It's enlightening.

Stizzel
11-22-2015, 03:22 PM
He does have a lot of libertarian positions and his stance on the Civil Rights Act is one of them. I campaigned for his father in 2008 and 2012, and follow the ron paul forums daily. So, I'm pretty aware of Rand's ideas.

Why do you keep name-calling? That's the second post in a row where you've tried to insult me.

The libertarian rejection of the civil rights act has to do with the non aggression principle.

Fatty

Stizzel
11-22-2015, 03:24 PM
Racism ended in the private sector because of the Civil Rights Act. Jim Crow laws regulated government establishments. Private establishments could choose to discriminate or not to discriminate.

Almost all of them chose to discriminate until they were forced not to by the federal government and its complete monopoly on violent enforcement.

Today, yes. 1950, no. Remember -- banks wouldn't give loans to blacks back then to open a business either. I actually wouldn't mind seeing the Civil Right Act repealed today because I think our society has matured enough to be able to handle the freedom to be racist.

Business owners were vehemently against jim crow laws. It turns out that excluding h as lf the population is not good for business.

You genius

sawoobley
11-22-2015, 03:31 PM
Surprisingly, these people weren't good enough for libertarianism. So, they needed some (liberal) authoritarianism to keep them in line.

That my ideology as a libertarian would have caused millions of people to needlessly suffer made me no longer a libertarian. I still lean libertarian on most policies but I'm not an ideologue anymore.

No one ideology is 100% correct and being an ideologue is really no different than believing a religious book 100% to the letter. If you find yourself supporting every tenant of a certain ideology, question yourself.

People are not always good enough to be trusted with freedom. Much of the time, people do need to be told what they can and can't do even if it doesn't directly hurt someone else. And if they disagree, sometimes you do need men with guns to violently put them in check.

What is surprising about your viewpoint is that it assumes the men with guns will always be the good guys to keep the evil and irresponsible citizens in check. The other problem with what you are saying is you think that the government forcing people to act properly is better than letting the people come to the realization themselves and thereby demand that their laws be changed. These problems that the government "fixed" have just been hidden and certain politicians and their accomplices in the press have kept these divisive issues alive so they can guarantee votes in their favor and keep people addicted to the crisis's they manufacture. It is true that some good things have come coercing people into acting better but the question is whether or not it is the most effective approach long term.

The biggest weakness with libertarianism is it is vulnerable to other belief systems that are willing to use force to achieve their goals like our modern day liberals. They are willing to shove their agenda down our throats so a hands off approach will only get you run over.

Tamorlane
11-22-2015, 04:48 PM
you never were a libertarian, you are just now finding out this fact as you seem to gain a better grasp as to what that ideology entails.

I bet if you think about it the revelations you are speaking about are probably how you felt all along.

A guy living in the middle of no where, who doesn't interact with government services or policies is likely a libertarian by social conditioning. All he wants is the constitution protecting him from the overreaching authority of the state and protected borders.

forcexdistance
11-22-2015, 05:19 PM
What is surprising about your viewpoint is that it assumes the men with guns will always be the good guys to keep the evil and irresponsible citizens in check.

Not at all. They are employed by us. Under a government elected by us. Maybe you don't vote but some of us do. Why are you so afraid of society? Why do you feel so impotent in democracy?

forcexdistance
11-22-2015, 05:33 PM
Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul and the "new libertarianism". And hits on the reason that people like the Koch bros are proponents of it.....


CHOMSKY: Ron Paul's a nice guy. If I had to have dinner with one of the
Republican candidates, I'd prefer to have it with him -- but, his policies
are off the wall.

I mean, sometimes I agree with him. I think we have to end the war in
Afghanistan. But, if you look at the other policies, I mean, it's kind of
shocking and principles that lie behind them (shakes head)....I don't know
what to say about them.

In the Republican debates, at one point -- and this kind of brought out
who he is --- he is agains Federal involvement in health, in anything. He
was aked something like, "Well, what if some guy's in a comma,
and...uh...he's going to die and he never took out insurance. What should
happen?"

Well, his first answer was something like, "It's a tribute to our liberty."

So, if he dies, that's a tribute to how free we are?

He kinda backed off from that, actually. There was a huge applause for
when he said that. But later, reactions were elsewhere. He backed up and
said, "Well, the church will take care of him...or charities or something
or other....so, it's not a problem."

I mean, this is just savagery.

And it goes across the board. In fact, it goes through the whole so-called
Libertarian ideology. It may sound nice on the surface but if you think it
through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny. It takes away any barrier
to corporate tyranny.

But, it's all academic. The business world would never permit it to happen
because it would destroy the economy. They can't live without a powerful
state, and they know it.

***********************

"I mean, this is just savagery" ....says it all about the new Libertarianism.

NVious
11-22-2015, 05:40 PM
Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul and the "new libertarianism". And hits on the reason that people like the Koch bros are proponents of it.....


CHOMSKY: Ron Paul's a nice guy. If I had to have dinner with one of the
Republican candidates, I'd prefer to have it with him -- but, his policies
are off the wall.

I mean, sometimes I agree with him. I think we have to end the war in
Afghanistan. But, if you look at the other policies, I mean, it's kind of
shocking and principles that lie behind them (shakes head)....I don't know
what to say about them.

In the Republican debates, at one point -- and this kind of brought out
who he is --- he is agains Federal involvement in health, in anything. He
was aked something like, "Well, what if some guy's in a comma,
and...uh...he's going to die and he never took out insurance. What should
happen?"

Well, his first answer was something like, "It's a tribute to our liberty."

So, if he dies, that's a tribute to how free we are?

He kinda backed off from that, actually. There was a huge applause for
when he said that. But later, reactions were elsewhere. He backed up and
said, "Well, the church will take care of him...or charities or something
or other....so, it's not a problem."

I mean, this is just savagery.

And it goes across the board. In fact, it goes through the whole so-called
Libertarian ideology. It may sound nice on the surface but if you think it
through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny. It takes away any barrier
to corporate tyranny.

But, it's all academic. The business world would never permit it to happen
because it would destroy the economy. They can't live without a powerful
state, and they know it.

***********************

"I mean, this is just savagery" ....says it all about the new Libertarianism.

>Implying there already isn't corporate tyranny
>Implying Obama a LIBERAL didn't bail out banks
>Implying corporate welfare isn't actually practiced by both parties

Also Rand Paul answers this here:

YUXwDMqjC-A

2:00 onward

Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist aka he is politically autistic.

Stizzel
11-23-2015, 05:41 AM
Noam "I dont even know what a corporation is" Chomsky likes to talk about the dangerous greed of capitalism with a bank account in the millions.

Liberals gon' lib amirite

sawoobley
11-23-2015, 07:01 AM
Not at all. They are employed by us. Under a government elected by us. Maybe you don't vote but some of us do. Why are you so afraid of society? Why do you feel so impotent in democracy?

Leaders go bad and try to usurp authority. Citizens get stupid and make poor decisions. Our constitution was written because these things happen and it makes an effort to protect us somewhat when things go bad. How can anyone think otherwise?

leafs43
11-23-2015, 07:04 AM
People are free to be stupid racist idiots.


If you don't think so, you don't believe in liberty.

terrysorange
11-23-2015, 07:47 AM
People are free to be stupid racist idiots.


If you don't think so, you don't believe in liberty.

People are free to physically harm each other.

If you don't think so, you don't believe in liberty.

Stizzel
11-23-2015, 07:50 AM
People are free to physically harm each other.

If you don't think so, you don't believe in liberty.

Only true if you get permission first.

terrysorange
11-23-2015, 07:54 AM
Only true if you get permission first.

Why? Why can't we harm people without permission?

tng83
11-23-2015, 08:00 AM
The reality is that the world and society is too complex and too varied in its views of the way thing ought to be in order for libertarianism to be possible. Moderate, independent policy makers who compromise and get things done is what we need and the the involvement of government in your life should be less at the federal level and more at the local level.

caQuiksilver
11-23-2015, 08:12 AM
I used to be a libertarian until I came to the same conclusion. Listen to Rand Paul arguing that private institutions should be exempt from the Civil Rights Act:

92M3mSKbwR4

In a perfect world, tolerating private businesses racially discriminating would be ok because most businesses wouldn't do it. If you're black and a grocery store says no blacks allowed, you can just go to the other grocery store. That would be the libertarian free-market solution.

However, the American people were so evil that EVERY grocery store said no blacks allowed. Libertarian policies on race allowed evil to flourish.

A libertarian would say the government can only enforce laws with violence and by pointing guns at people.. In the real world, that's actually what it took:

For non-US miscers, these pictures are the national guard escorting black students to class because a lot of the white people wanted to hurt or kill them.

https://2e35f3d7efa41f6a08b9-6590e85903d1168a261ce2e01f6fe2c5.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.c om/1c2e407b9c6cc5a8eb126873118b69be.jpg

http://sociologytoolbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Screen-Shot-2013-09-01-at-2.38.57-PM-300x231.png

Surprisingly, these people weren't good enough for libertarianism. So, they needed some (liberal) authoritarianism to keep them in line.

That my ideology as a libertarian would have caused millions of people to needlessly suffer made me no longer a libertarian. I still lean libertarian on most policies but I'm not an ideologue anymore.

No one ideology is 100% correct and being an ideologue is really no different than believing a religious book 100% to the letter. If you find yourself supporting every tenant of a certain ideology, question yourself.

People are not always good enough to be trusted with freedom. Much of the time, people do need to be told what they can and can't do even if it doesn't directly hurt someone else. And if they disagree, sometimes you do need men with guns to violently put them in check.

Rapid change is generally never good.

Bringing democratic thought to Afghanistan has to happen slowly, with a timeframe of hundreds of years.

Same thing with libertarian thought. Expose people to it and it will be abused to support their existing ideas. It has to be done slowly and responsibly.

I believe in libertarianism, but like you I don't believe many are ready for it, and believe it should happen very slowly and gradually, to arrive at that place in a few hundred years.


Good example to the contrary is Alan Greenspan's support of de-regulating the banking industry in 1998-1999. The banking industry was deregulated overnight, and 120+ year old firms destroyed themselves within 8 years. I support deregulation, but it has to happen at a pace with which the deregulated entities can develop professionalism and responsibility to compensate.

Using an injured limb as an analogy. Professionalism is like muscle. Add a caste or brace to the limb (regulation), and the professionalism/muscle will atrophy as it is not needed anymore. Remove the regulation/brace/caste suddenly, and the muscle is atrophied and the limb will break.


That said, I believe the general trend -- and governments have a responsibility to support this -- is to develop that personal/civil responsibility and professionalism. On the contrary, I see governments really thrilled at having irresponsible citizens, as this justifies most of governments existence. One of the core challenges of western civilization for the next few hundred years probably. How to get governments to engage in action which challenges its own existence?

Stizzel
11-23-2015, 08:26 AM
The banking industry was deregulated lololol

This thread delivers

GreatOldOne
11-23-2015, 08:43 AM
Well said OP.

moksha16
11-25-2015, 06:45 PM
The libertarian rejection of the civil rights act has to do with the non aggression principle.

Fatty

How should libertarian prinicples/policies/laws be enforced if someone refuses to live by them?

wariscool
11-25-2015, 07:00 PM
Here are other real-world results of pure libertarianism:

[imgttpsi.ytimgcom/vi/x2Iwa9LeuFM/maxresdefaultg]

[imghtt/wwferriedu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/timeline/images/jimcrowg]

[imttpsphisquoracdnet/main-qimg-67734a9f8c92210dfa7cac910080ea1e?convert_to_webp=t ruemg]

This is called freedom and its ****ing awesome but I know you are a black supremicist troll who is anti white so im not gonna argue with me.

OH NOEZ THERES MEAN PEOPLE WHO DONT WANNA TAKE MY MONEY, WAHHH I NEED BIG DADDY GOVT TO FORCE THEM TO TAKE MY MONEY.

wariscool
11-25-2015, 07:01 PM
How should libertarian prinicples/policies/laws be enforced if someone refuses to live by them?

By defensive force. Its a pretty simple concept.

Teardust
11-25-2015, 08:31 PM
Bringing democratic thought to Afghanistan has to happen slowly, with a timeframe of hundreds of years.

Same thing with libertarian thought. Expose people to it and it will be abused to support their existing ideas. It has to be done slowly and responsibly.

Your unstated premise is that these things are learned, or conditioned - maybe democratic thought will never come to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is only 2000 miles from Greece, the birthplace (supposed) of Democracy thousands of years ago, haven't they had time to pick it up by now if they were going to ?

Same for Libertarian thought, hasn't everyone had a chance to pick it up by now if they were going to ?

Maybe Libertarianism is conditioned from childhood in remote places further from civilization where people have to depend on themselves, or maybe it's in people's DNA, who knows. Maybe only people with a certain IQ level ever become Libertarians. It's hard to say.

Are Afghani's libertarians ?

grinch031
11-30-2015, 05:49 AM
I am definitely libertarian when it comes to individual citizen's rights. We need to let the people be as free as possible. However where libertarianism fails is in business. Businesses will discriminate. Businesses will oppress workers and customers. They will monopolize and they need to be bound by laws and regulations. There is no other way around it. The larger the company is, the worse they seem to be to their employees and customers.

JaxBrah
11-30-2015, 06:02 AM
op forgot that segregation was government enforced. no free market libertariansim as work there. so your whole basis for abandoning libertarianism is condeming the system you now support. pretty funny

Stizzel
11-30-2015, 06:46 AM
How should libertarian prinicples/policies/laws be enforced if someone refuses to live by them?

You don't have to enforce laws upon people who choose not to participate in your society.

Stizzel
11-30-2015, 06:49 AM
I am definitely libertarian when it comes to individual citizen's rights. We need to let the people be as free as possible. However where libertarianism fails is in business. Businesses will discriminate. Businesses will oppress workers and customers. They will monopolize and they need to be bound by laws and regulations. There is no other way around it. The larger the company is, the worse they seem to be to their employees and customers.

You are concerned about monopoly and propose a monopoly as the solution? I dont think you thought this through very well

grinch031
11-30-2015, 07:17 AM
You are concerned about monopoly and propose a monopoly as the solution? I dont think you thought this through very well

What monopoly am I proposing? I suppose Comcast treats their customers like complete garbage because they are over-regulated?

Brodent
11-30-2015, 02:35 PM
Libertarianism presupposes the "all people are equal" maxim in order to work, because it needs people to respect each other's free will.

Coincidentally, when a business owner only cares about making money, he won't let his racism get in the way of making sales.

Stizzel
11-30-2015, 05:45 PM
What monopoly am I proposing? I suppose Comcast treats their customers like complete garbage because they are over-regulated?

The government

Stizzel
11-30-2015, 05:47 PM
Libertarianism presupposes the "all people are equal" maxim in order to work, because it needs people to respect each other's free will.

Coincidentally, when a business owner only cares about making money, he won't let his racism get in the way of making sales.

Businesses are forced to cater to consumers if they are operating in a free market. If the market is racist, the business has to cater to that or go out of business. Or operate in a niche market. If the market is anti racist then the business must cater to that, even if the owner is racist, or face the same issues.

Stizzel
11-30-2015, 05:51 PM
CsXxUKjklt8

W1xmGK8PEJw

trailwarrior
11-30-2015, 05:59 PM
YwpnH_OTZio

ZzBrahh
11-30-2015, 07:25 PM
Businesses are forced to cater to consumers if they are operating in a free market. If the market is racist, the business has to cater to that or go out of business. Or operate in a niche market. If the market is anti racist then the business must cater to that, even if the owner is racist, or face the same issues.

"we can only have a free market, if the we elect a socialist government to control it " - bernie sanders and all statists retards.


lmao

IronRooster2
12-01-2015, 08:25 PM
I just watched the Bernie Sanders video and understand his point. Climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels. Our reliance on fossil fuels is what led to Bush wanting to invade Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century -- proof). That led to ISIS.

He was talking specifically about Syria and guys like al-Nusra when it comes to climate change. The drought there led to the mass protests against al-Assad. Because starving people get fukkin' pissed. al-Assad, genius he is, decided to take his mommy's advice to address their complaints with a little mass murder. A clusterfuk of a war with half a dozen different sides broke out. If Syria were secure, Daesh would have smaller territory and therefore a smaller tax base to fund its organization from.

That people don't know 'bout dat drought is because Americans don't know jack shhit about the region. And why should they? They've got kids to feed, jack. All they know is from the crumbs the TV tells them while they get loaded after busting ass all day. And the TV's solution to everything is BOMB THE FUCCK OUT OF THEM. Problem still persists? We're just not bombing enough.


However where libertarianism fails is in business. Businesses will discriminate. Businesses will oppress workers and customers. They will monopolize and they need to be bound by laws and regulations. There is no other way around it. The larger the company is, the worse they seem to be to their employees and customers.

This man gets it.

When the economic value of a human being drops to $0 over the upcoming decades, how will libertarianism deal with the whole needing to eat thing humans like to do?

It's just altogether weird to me. The foundation of Karl Marx's ideology was that technology leads to a restructuring of the power base in societies. In other words - that things always change.

Libertarianism posits what? That everything must always stay the same? That getting rid of the government will solve all our problems in every single case? The only way it wouldn't lead to mass murder is if everyone was allocated land to grow their own food on to subside. But forbidding people from hoarding land is a conservationist/socialist concept, completely antithetical to libertarianism.

People really don't appreciate how fragile the status quo is. The CPU has been ubiquitous for what, barely 35 years now? Cognitive computing is about at the same stage as the Wright Brother's first plane right now. 60 years from now, things are going to start looking very different.

But on the other hand, we have guys advocating to bring back acid rain. Whoohoo. Sign me up.

IronRooster2
12-01-2015, 08:34 PM
Americans don't know jack shhit about the region.

The classic one being our "ally" Saudi Arabia being the ones who flew planes into our buildings, and who also like to lop off heads of people they don't like.

All this fear-mongering over the Islamic State, and in the end if they manage to avoid becoming a failed state (their finances look pretty shaky long term imo) all they'll be is another Saudi Arabia.


all they'll be is another Saudi Arabia.

This right here is the poster child for "silly chit Bernie Sanders says", guys. When he says "hey, Saudi Arabia has a huge military. Why don't they pitch in to help fight ISIS eh?" Well, they're not gonna because they largely agree with them and therefore have nothing to fear.

Wahhabi governments gotta stick together, yo.

Stizzel
12-01-2015, 08:36 PM
He was talking specifically about Syria and guys like al-Nusra when it comes to climate change. The drought there led to the mass protests against al-Assad. Because starving people get fukkin' pissed. al-Assad, genius he is, decided to take his mommy's advice to address their complaints with a little mass murder. A clusterfuk of a war with half a dozen different sides broke out. If Syria were secure, Daesh would have smaller territory and therefore a smaller tax base to fund its organization from.

That people don't know 'bout dat drought is because Americans don't know jack shhit about the region. And why should they? They've got kids to feed, jack. All they know is from the crumbs the TV tells them while they get loaded after busting ass all day. And the TV's solution to everything is BOMB THE FUCCK OUT OF THEM. Problem still persists? We're just not bombing enough.



This man gets it.

When the economic value of a human being drops to $0 over the upcoming decades, how will libertarianism deal with the whole needing to eat thing humans like to do?

It's just altogether weird to me. The foundation of Karl Marx's ideology was that technology leads to a restructuring of the power base in societies. In other words - that things always change.

Libertarianism posits what? That everything must always stay the same? That getting rid of the government will solve all our problems in every single case? The only way it wouldn't lead to mass murder is if everyone was allocated land to grow their own food on to subside. But forbidding people from hoarding land is a conservationist/socialist concept, completely antithetical to libertarianism.

People really don't appreciate how fragile the status quo is. The CPU has been ubiquitous for what, barely 35 years now? Cognitive computing is about at the same stage as the Wright Brother's first plane right now. 60 years from now, things are going to start looking very different.

But on the other hand, we have guys advocating to bring back acid rain. Whoohoo. Sign me up.

Not sure if trolling or actually stupid

NVious
12-01-2015, 10:19 PM
Not sure if trolling or actually stupid

Dude just think about it, when robots are doing everything, life'll be AWFUL because we won't have jobs and acid rain and MONOPOLIES....MONOPOLIES BRAH!

#Ownd