Total Posts:186|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jon Stewart's 19 Questions for Libertarians

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 4:19:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here are the Questions, and my answers:

1. Is government the antithesis of liberty?

Liberty is defined as an individual's ability to govern his or herself.

Individuals always have the ability to govern themselves, no matter what the state does. After all, the state has no ability to take away people's abilities to control their own physical bodily functions.

The state does have a monopoly on law and violence. This means that the state does have the power to send guns after individuals who govern themselves in a way the state finds undesirable.

This does not technically stop individuals from governing themselves in certain ways, but it does basically force individuals to choose between governing themselves in a way the state finds desirable, running away and hiding, or being killed by the state.

2. One of the things that enhances freedoms are roads. Infrastructure enhances freedom. A social safety net enhances freedom.

What is freedom?

I have no idea how things can advance an undefined term. Of course, the concept of freedom is very subjective to begin with.

However, Stewart implies that only the state is able to provide roads, infrastructure, and a social safety net. He is incorrect in this assertion. These are all things that people demand, and, in a society free of state coercion, individuals will provide these things.

In fact, there are numerous historical examples of stateless societies having welfare, roads, law, etc.

3. What should we do with the losers that are picked by the free market?

I don't believe understand what a free market is. I define the free market as the free association of individuals, without state coercion.

The "free market" is not some entity, seperate from people, that "picks" winners and losers. People are the free market. Nature, if you will, is the free market.

So, the free market cannot pick losers. Of course, there are some individuals that offer goods and services that are not as valued by other individuals as are the goods and services of some others.

If we were to subsidize this sort of thing, there would be major unintended consequences.

4.Do we live in a society or don't we? Are we a collective? Everybody's success is predicated on the hard work of all of us; nobody gets there on their own. Why should it be that the people who lose are hung out to dry? For a group that doesn't believe in evolution, it's awfully Darwinian.

These questions were aimed at Libertarians. Libertarians generally do believe in evolution.

Now, of course we live in a society. Indvidual's success is dependant on a number of factors outside of their control. These include genes, environment, and various orther things.

So, the question then becomes how this fact, that people are not directly responsible for their own success or failure, implies a state, or, as Stewart advocates, a larger state.

Does the fact that someone fails mean that society "owes" them something?

And, if it does mean that, then people should give this person what they are owed without a coercive state?

Furthermore, the idea that individuals are "owed" anything to begin with bewilders me. What are individuals but the scientific result of unprotected sexual intercourse?

So, in this context, anything society "owes" this individual is basically the same as child support, except society is the father. Welfare programs, State health care, etc. are all basically child support programs.

The idea that people are born into the world already entitled to certain stuff is an odd idea indeed.

5. In a representative democracy, we are the government. We have work to do, and we have a business to run, and we have children to raise.. We elect you as our representatives to look after our interests within a democratic system.

"We" are not the state in a representative democracy. The state is an institution full of individuals that are selected, not by us, but by the "majority" and other individuals (non elected individuals) that are basically selected by special interests.

6.Is government inherently evil?

"Evil" is subjective. However, the state is violent, innefficient, and coercive.

7. Sometimes to protect the greater liberty you have to do things like form an army, or gather a group together to build a wall or levy.

Yes, these things can, and have, happened in the absence of a coercive state. Armies and walls do NOT require states.

8. As soon as you've built an army, you've now said government isn't always inherently evil because we need it to help us sometimes, so now.. it's that old joke: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? How about a dollar? -Who do you think I am?- We already decided who you are, now we're just negotiating.

Again, a coercive state is not required for those things.

9. You say: government which governs least governments best. But that were the Articles of Confederation. We tried that for 8 years, it didn't work, and went to the Constitution.

This is hardly an example of statelessness failing. The United States's economy actually started recovering before the Constitution was ratified.

The depression of the 1780s was mostly the result of post war changes in trade routes, repaying of war debts, etc.

However, the state governments made it worse by putting up tarriffs, and the weak national government printed far too much money, resulting in severe inflation.

10. You give money to the IRS because you think they're gonna hire a bunch of people, that if your house catches on fire, will come there with water.

Again, public safety could, and has, been provided in societies free of a coercive state.

11.Why is it that libertarians trust a corporation, in certain matters, more than they trust representatives that are accountable to voters? The idea that I would give up my liberty to an insurance company, as opposed to my representative, seems insane.

Corporations do not have a monopoly on violence and do not have the ability to steal with the support of a majority of society (an act known as taxation).

Some corporations do engage in public theft through subsidies, but these only exist through the state.

12. Why is it that with competition, we have such difficulty with our health care system? ..and there are choices within the educational system.

This is an uniformed question. The state has intervened in the Health Care market more than it has in any other area, and the result is a mess. The same goes for education.

13. Would you go back to 1890?

No

14. If we didn't have government, we'd all be in hovercrafts, and nobody would have cancer, and broccoli would be ice-cream?

No, but we would be much more technologically advanced.

15. Unregulated markets have been tried. The 80's and the 90's were the robber baron age. These regulations didn't come out of an interest in restricting liberty. What they did is came out of an interest in helping those that had been victimized by a system that they couldn't fight back against.

Those regulations, or controls, were actually created by the by existing corporations to suppress competition in their respective markets. Upton Sinclair, the author of The Jungle, opposed the creation of the FDA, which regulated food and drugs.

16. Why do you think workers that worked in the mines unionized?

Because even though their standard of living was improving, it wasn't improving fast enough for them.

I certainly believe workers have a right to come together to form unions.


I will answer the last three questions below
:
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 4:24:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
17. Without the government there are no labor unions, because they would be smashed by Pinkerton agencies or people hired, or even sometimes the government.

If worker's unions were being unreasonable, I would hope business leaders would hire more reasonable workers.

If unions were practical and did help workers, they would remain strong in a stateless society. If they were not practical and did not help workers, they would fade.

18. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

The free market would have forced integration. Discrimination based on race is highly innefficient and harms the business owners discriminating.

In the long run, segretation would have largely faded out.

19.Government is necessary but must be held accountable for its decisions.

The state is a coercive and innefficient institution that should be eliminated. You cannot hold this kind of institution "accountable".
President of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 5:27:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Where did you get these questions?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 5:38:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 5:40:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 4:24:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

18. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

The free market would have forced integration. Discrimination based on race is highly innefficient and harms the business owners discriminating.

In the long run, segretation would have largely faded out.

And once again we have Jimmy with "ahistorical hour."

Do we have to go over AGAIN how the free market existed under the southern system? How the influences of racism run much deeper than simple neo-classical economics?

You can't just conflate tendencies towards free market with social policy. You can easily run a free market without any social policy stopping segregation. All that has to happen is the society has to set an equilibrium where desegregation leads to negative social outcomes (in the south, going to a restaurant that served blacks was considered extremely uncultured and uncivilized), where human capital is arbitrarily isolated and focused (limiting blacks from owning property or doing anything other than physical labor makes them a different sort of "good" from human capital that involves agents able to own land and hold a higher number of jobs.

If there are no diminishing marginal returns for racism, there is no incentive to get rid of racism. In the restaurant and services industry, racism had increasing marginal returns (only serving whites means more customers with money since whites would not eat with blacks who had little money).
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 5:48:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 5:40:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 4:24:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

18. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

The free market would have forced integration. Discrimination based on race is highly innefficient and harms the business owners discriminating.

In the long run, segretation would have largely faded out.

And once again we have Jimmy with "ahistorical hour."

Do we have to go over AGAIN how the free market existed under the southern system? How the influences of racism run much deeper than simple neo-classical economics?

No, not true, not in the long run. Jim Crow laws were state enforced and slavery was protected by the state.

Racism is innefficient and would be marginalized in a free market.

You can't just conflate tendencies towards free market with social policy. You can easily run a free market without any social policy stopping segregation. All that has to happen is the society has to set an equilibrium where desegregation leads to negative social outcomes (in the south, going to a restaurant that served blacks was considered extremely uncultured and uncivilized), where human capital is arbitrarily isolated and focused (limiting blacks from owning property or doing anything other than physical labor makes them a different sort of "good" from human capital that involves agents able to own land and hold a higher number of jobs.

Again, not true. In the LONG RUN, businesses that don't disrcriminate will out compete those that do.


If there are no diminishing marginal returns for racism, there is no incentive to get rid of racism. In the restaurant and services industry, racism had increasing marginal returns (only serving whites means more customers with money since whites would not eat with blacks who had little money).

The white customers that refused to eat with blacks would be outcompeted in other facets of life as well.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 6:32:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 5:48:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:40:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 4:24:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

18. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

The free market would have forced integration. Discrimination based on race is highly innefficient and harms the business owners discriminating.

In the long run, segretation would have largely faded out.

And once again we have Jimmy with "ahistorical hour."

Do we have to go over AGAIN how the free market existed under the southern system? How the influences of racism run much deeper than simple neo-classical economics?

No, not true, not in the long run. Jim Crow laws were state enforced and slavery was protected by the state.

Racism is innefficient and would be marginalized in a free market.

You can't just conflate tendencies towards free market with social policy. You can easily run a free market without any social policy stopping segregation. All that has to happen is the society has to set an equilibrium where desegregation leads to negative social outcomes (in the south, going to a restaurant that served blacks was considered extremely uncultured and uncivilized), where human capital is arbitrarily isolated and focused (limiting blacks from owning property or doing anything other than physical labor makes them a different sort of "good" from human capital that involves agents able to own land and hold a higher number of jobs.


Again, not true. In the LONG RUN, businesses that don't disrcriminate will out compete those that do.


If there are no diminishing marginal returns for racism, there is no incentive to get rid of racism. In the restaurant and services industry, racism had increasing marginal returns (only serving whites means more customers with money since whites would not eat with blacks who had little money).

The white customers that refused to eat with blacks would be outcompeted in other facets of life as well.

What are you talking about?

Jim Crow was the post-reconstruction iteration of the slavery system. It didn't exist in a vacuum, it was part of the sliding slope the south used against the Federal government's attempts at intervention. We're talking about an institution that existed during pre-colonial governments, british governance, articles of confederation governance, american governance, confederation governance, and post-reconstruction southern governance.

How can you in your right of mind claim government is responsible for perpetuating that?

And again, "long run" doesn't change if you have a social equilibrium. Enforcing segregation in restaurants in the south had increasing marginal returns. Under a free market system, that PROMOTES segregation.

I have no idea what you mean by saying rich white people will be "out-competed" because they refuse to sit in the same restaurant as black people.

"Free markets" exist in relation to the agents acting within it and the infrastructure through which they act. You're trying to apply neoclassical economics to history without any regard for the agents involved or the social and infrastructure. Again.

It's more FREE MARKET RULZ
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 6:55:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 6:32:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:48:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:40:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 4:24:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

18. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

The free market would have forced integration. Discrimination based on race is highly innefficient and harms the business owners discriminating.

In the long run, segretation would have largely faded out.

And once again we have Jimmy with "ahistorical hour."

Do we have to go over AGAIN how the free market existed under the southern system? How the influences of racism run much deeper than simple neo-classical economics?

No, not true, not in the long run. Jim Crow laws were state enforced and slavery was protected by the state.

Racism is innefficient and would be marginalized in a free market.

You can't just conflate tendencies towards free market with social policy. You can easily run a free market without any social policy stopping segregation. All that has to happen is the society has to set an equilibrium where desegregation leads to negative social outcomes (in the south, going to a restaurant that served blacks was considered extremely uncultured and uncivilized), where human capital is arbitrarily isolated and focused (limiting blacks from owning property or doing anything other than physical labor makes them a different sort of "good" from human capital that involves agents able to own land and hold a higher number of jobs.


Again, not true. In the LONG RUN, businesses that don't disrcriminate will out compete those that do.


If there are no diminishing marginal returns for racism, there is no incentive to get rid of racism. In the restaurant and services industry, racism had increasing marginal returns (only serving whites means more customers with money since whites would not eat with blacks who had little money).

The white customers that refused to eat with blacks would be outcompeted in other facets of life as well.

What are you talking about?

Jim Crow was the post-reconstruction iteration of the slavery system. It didn't exist in a vacuum, it was part of the sliding slope the south used against the Federal government's attempts at intervention. We're talking about an institution that existed during pre-colonial governments, british governance, articles of confederation governance, american governance, confederation governance, and post-reconstruction southern governance.

How can you in your right of mind claim government is responsible for perpetuating that?

And again, "long run" doesn't change if you have a social equilibrium. Enforcing segregation in restaurants in the south had increasing marginal returns. Under a free market system, that PROMOTES segregation.

I have no idea what you mean by saying rich white people will be "out-competed" because they refuse to sit in the same restaurant as black people.

"Free markets" exist in relation to the agents acting within it and the infrastructure through which they act. You're trying to apply neoclassical economics to history without any regard for the agents involved or the social and infrastructure. Again.

It's more FREE MARKET RULZ

Wnope, if people want segregation, why is segregation bad?

So, if everyone is attached to segregation, it will be present. However, due to the fact that racial discrimination is innefficient, it will be marginalized.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:15:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 6:55:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 6:32:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:48:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:40:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 4:24:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

18. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

The free market would have forced integration. Discrimination based on race is highly innefficient and harms the business owners discriminating.

In the long run, segretation would have largely faded out.

And once again we have Jimmy with "ahistorical hour."

Do we have to go over AGAIN how the free market existed under the southern system? How the influences of racism run much deeper than simple neo-classical economics?

No, not true, not in the long run. Jim Crow laws were state enforced and slavery was protected by the state.

Racism is innefficient and would be marginalized in a free market.

You can't just conflate tendencies towards free market with social policy. You can easily run a free market without any social policy stopping segregation. All that has to happen is the society has to set an equilibrium where desegregation leads to negative social outcomes (in the south, going to a restaurant that served blacks was considered extremely uncultured and uncivilized), where human capital is arbitrarily isolated and focused (limiting blacks from owning property or doing anything other than physical labor makes them a different sort of "good" from human capital that involves agents able to own land and hold a higher number of jobs.


Again, not true. In the LONG RUN, businesses that don't disrcriminate will out compete those that do.


If there are no diminishing marginal returns for racism, there is no incentive to get rid of racism. In the restaurant and services industry, racism had increasing marginal returns (only serving whites means more customers with money since whites would not eat with blacks who had little money).

The white customers that refused to eat with blacks would be outcompeted in other facets of life as well.

What are you talking about?

Jim Crow was the post-reconstruction iteration of the slavery system. It didn't exist in a vacuum, it was part of the sliding slope the south used against the Federal government's attempts at intervention. We're talking about an institution that existed during pre-colonial governments, british governance, articles of confederation governance, american governance, confederation governance, and post-reconstruction southern governance.

How can you in your right of mind claim government is responsible for perpetuating that?

And again, "long run" doesn't change if you have a social equilibrium. Enforcing segregation in restaurants in the south had increasing marginal returns. Under a free market system, that PROMOTES segregation.

I have no idea what you mean by saying rich white people will be "out-competed" because they refuse to sit in the same restaurant as black people.

"Free markets" exist in relation to the agents acting within it and the infrastructure through which they act. You're trying to apply neoclassical economics to history without any regard for the agents involved or the social and infrastructure. Again.

It's more FREE MARKET RULZ

Wnope, if people want segregation, why is segregation bad?

So, if everyone is attached to segregation, it will be present. However, due to the fact that racial discrimination is innefficient, it will be marginalized.

You have just shown the epitomy of "free market rulz." If people want slavery, why not?

Only the oppressors have to be for segregation. The oppressed can be as much against segregation as you like. And they were. That's how the equilibrium works.

Whenever the oppressed try to do anything, Jim Crow allowed the southern institution to legally reinforce itself when perpetuating a racist society. And, as mentioned, Jim Crow is just an incarnation of a long running sentiment.

I'm just going to assume you weren't implying that blacks were for segregation.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:17:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 5:27:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Where did you get these questions?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:25:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:15:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 6:55:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 6:32:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:48:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:40:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 4:24:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

18. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

The free market would have forced integration. Discrimination based on race is highly innefficient and harms the business owners discriminating.

In the long run, segretation would have largely faded out.

And once again we have Jimmy with "ahistorical hour."

Do we have to go over AGAIN how the free market existed under the southern system? How the influences of racism run much deeper than simple neo-classical economics?

No, not true, not in the long run. Jim Crow laws were state enforced and slavery was protected by the state.

Racism is innefficient and would be marginalized in a free market.

You can't just conflate tendencies towards free market with social policy. You can easily run a free market without any social policy stopping segregation. All that has to happen is the society has to set an equilibrium where desegregation leads to negative social outcomes (in the south, going to a restaurant that served blacks was considered extremely uncultured and uncivilized), where human capital is arbitrarily isolated and focused (limiting blacks from owning property or doing anything other than physical labor makes them a different sort of "good" from human capital that involves agents able to own land and hold a higher number of jobs.


Again, not true. In the LONG RUN, businesses that don't disrcriminate will out compete those that do.


If there are no diminishing marginal returns for racism, there is no incentive to get rid of racism. In the restaurant and services industry, racism had increasing marginal returns (only serving whites means more customers with money since whites would not eat with blacks who had little money).

The white customers that refused to eat with blacks would be outcompeted in other facets of life as well.

What are you talking about?

Jim Crow was the post-reconstruction iteration of the slavery system. It didn't exist in a vacuum, it was part of the sliding slope the south used against the Federal government's attempts at intervention. We're talking about an institution that existed during pre-colonial governments, british governance, articles of confederation governance, american governance, confederation governance, and post-reconstruction southern governance.

How can you in your right of mind claim government is responsible for perpetuating that?

And again, "long run" doesn't change if you have a social equilibrium. Enforcing segregation in restaurants in the south had increasing marginal returns. Under a free market system, that PROMOTES segregation.

I have no idea what you mean by saying rich white people will be "out-competed" because they refuse to sit in the same restaurant as black people.

"Free markets" exist in relation to the agents acting within it and the infrastructure through which they act. You're trying to apply neoclassical economics to history without any regard for the agents involved or the social and infrastructure. Again.

It's more FREE MARKET RULZ

Wnope, if people want segregation, why is segregation bad?

So, if everyone is attached to segregation, it will be present. However, due to the fact that racial discrimination is innefficient, it will be marginalized.

You have just shown the epitomy of "free market rulz." If people want slavery, why not?

Only the oppressors have to be for segregation. The oppressed can be as much against segregation as you like. And they were. That's how the equilibrium works.

Whenever the oppressed try to do anything, Jim Crow allowed the southern institution to legally reinforce itself when perpetuating a racist society. And, as mentioned, Jim Crow is just an incarnation of a long running sentiment.

I'm just going to assume you weren't implying that blacks were for segregation.

Wnope, who are you to say that black didn't want segregation?

In fact, I recall one of the great black heroes, Malcolm X, being for black seperatism and opposing integration.

But, Wnope, I guess you speak for the black community.

Now, as you mentioned slavery was maintained by the state, as was segregation through Jim Crow.

In a free market, slavery would have ended earlier for most blacks.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:36:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:25:58 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:15:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 6:55:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 6:32:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:48:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:40:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 4:24:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

18. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

The free market would have forced integration. Discrimination based on race is highly innefficient and harms the business owners discriminating.

In the long run, segretation would have largely faded out.

And once again we have Jimmy with "ahistorical hour."

Do we have to go over AGAIN how the free market existed under the southern system? How the influences of racism run much deeper than simple neo-classical economics?

No, not true, not in the long run. Jim Crow laws were state enforced and slavery was protected by the state.

Racism is innefficient and would be marginalized in a free market.

You can't just conflate tendencies towards free market with social policy. You can easily run a free market without any social policy stopping segregation. All that has to happen is the society has to set an equilibrium where desegregation leads to negative social outcomes (in the south, going to a restaurant that served blacks was considered extremely uncultured and uncivilized), where human capital is arbitrarily isolated and focused (limiting blacks from owning property or doing anything other than physical labor makes them a different sort of "good" from human capital that involves agents able to own land and hold a higher number of jobs.


Again, not true. In the LONG RUN, businesses that don't disrcriminate will out compete those that do.


If there are no diminishing marginal returns for racism, there is no incentive to get rid of racism. In the restaurant and services industry, racism had increasing marginal returns (only serving whites means more customers with money since whites would not eat with blacks who had little money).

The white customers that refused to eat with blacks would be outcompeted in other facets of life as well.

What are you talking about?

Jim Crow was the post-reconstruction iteration of the slavery system. It didn't exist in a vacuum, it was part of the sliding slope the south used against the Federal government's attempts at intervention. We're talking about an institution that existed during pre-colonial governments, british governance, articles of confederation governance, american governance, confederation governance, and post-reconstruction southern governance.

How can you in your right of mind claim government is responsible for perpetuating that?

And again, "long run" doesn't change if you have a social equilibrium. Enforcing segregation in restaurants in the south had increasing marginal returns. Under a free market system, that PROMOTES segregation.

I have no idea what you mean by saying rich white people will be "out-competed" because they refuse to sit in the same restaurant as black people.

"Free markets" exist in relation to the agents acting within it and the infrastructure through which they act. You're trying to apply neoclassical economics to history without any regard for the agents involved or the social and infrastructure. Again.

It's more FREE MARKET RULZ

Wnope, if people want segregation, why is segregation bad?

So, if everyone is attached to segregation, it will be present. However, due to the fact that racial discrimination is innefficient, it will be marginalized.

You have just shown the epitomy of "free market rulz." If people want slavery, why not?

Only the oppressors have to be for segregation. The oppressed can be as much against segregation as you like. And they were. That's how the equilibrium works.

Whenever the oppressed try to do anything, Jim Crow allowed the southern institution to legally reinforce itself when perpetuating a racist society. And, as mentioned, Jim Crow is just an incarnation of a long running sentiment.

I'm just going to assume you weren't implying that blacks were for segregation.

Wnope, who are you to say that black didn't want segregation?

In fact, I recall one of the great black heroes, Malcolm X, being for black seperatism and opposing integration.

But, Wnope, I guess you speak for the black community.

Now, as you mentioned slavery was maintained by the state, as was segregation through Jim Crow.

In a free market, slavery would have ended earlier for most blacks.

You might want to study Malcom X's speeches a BIT more closely if you think him supporting black separatism is the same as supporting southern segregation.

Unless you believe the civil rights movement was a puppet act by white people, I find it hard to think that blacks were in favor of segregation.

The international slave trade existed independently of the state. The states main choice was either to close or open the slave trade. America closed the slave trade (very anti-free market), but the south kept their slaves anyway. If you destroyed the government in the south in the 1800s (more free market), the slave trade would have RE-OPENED if anything.

Free markets only exist in relation to their agents and infrastructure. How would applying a "free market" to America in 1760 or 1820 change things? Why wasn't the "free market" applying?

Also, do you still maintain restaurants would have desegregated in the Jim Crow south with just "free market forces?"
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:44:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Liberals are always trying to assume Libertarians are anarchists. It's the only way they can appear superior to libertarians in their philosophy. We would be happy with 1/3 the federal government we have now. That would still allow for national defense, roads, a safety net, schools and anything else states wanted to provide.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:46:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:44:50 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Liberals are always trying to assume Libertarians are anarchists. It's the only way they can appear superior to libertarians in their philosophy. We would be happy with 1/3 the federal government we have now. That would still allow for national defense, roads, a safety net, schools and anything else states wanted to provide.

Massive, massive, massive strawman. What liberal do you know that thinks this?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:48:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:36:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:25:58 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:15:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 6:55:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 6:32:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:48:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:40:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 4:24:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

18. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

The free market would have forced integration. Discrimination based on race is highly innefficient and harms the business owners discriminating.

In the long run, segretation would have largely faded out.

And once again we have Jimmy with "ahistorical hour."

Do we have to go over AGAIN how the free market existed under the southern system? How the influences of racism run much deeper than simple neo-classical economics?

No, not true, not in the long run. Jim Crow laws were state enforced and slavery was protected by the state.

Racism is innefficient and would be marginalized in a free market.

You can't just conflate tendencies towards free market with social policy. You can easily run a free market without any social policy stopping segregation. All that has to happen is the society has to set an equilibrium where desegregation leads to negative social outcomes (in the south, going to a restaurant that served blacks was considered extremely uncultured and uncivilized), where human capital is arbitrarily isolated and focused (limiting blacks from owning property or doing anything other than physical labor makes them a different sort of "good" from human capital that involves agents able to own land and hold a higher number of jobs.


Again, not true. In the LONG RUN, businesses that don't disrcriminate will out compete those that do.


If there are no diminishing marginal returns for racism, there is no incentive to get rid of racism. In the restaurant and services industry, racism had increasing marginal returns (only serving whites means more customers with money since whites would not eat with blacks who had little money).

The white customers that refused to eat with blacks would be outcompeted in other facets of life as well.

What are you talking about?

Jim Crow was the post-reconstruction iteration of the slavery system. It didn't exist in a vacuum, it was part of the sliding slope the south used against the Federal government's attempts at intervention. We're talking about an institution that existed during pre-colonial governments, british governance, articles of confederation governance, american governance, confederation governance, and post-reconstruction southern governance.

How can you in your right of mind claim government is responsible for perpetuating that?

And again, "long run" doesn't change if you have a social equilibrium. Enforcing segregation in restaurants in the south had increasing marginal returns. Under a free market system, that PROMOTES segregation.

I have no idea what you mean by saying rich white people will be "out-competed" because they refuse to sit in the same restaurant as black people.

"Free markets" exist in relation to the agents acting within it and the infrastructure through which they act. You're trying to apply neoclassical economics to history without any regard for the agents involved or the social and infrastructure. Again.

It's more FREE MARKET RULZ

Wnope, if people want segregation, why is segregation bad?

So, if everyone is attached to segregation, it will be present. However, due to the fact that racial discrimination is innefficient, it will be marginalized.

You have just shown the epitomy of "free market rulz." If people want slavery, why not?

Only the oppressors have to be for segregation. The oppressed can be as much against segregation as you like. And they were. That's how the equilibrium works.

Whenever the oppressed try to do anything, Jim Crow allowed the southern institution to legally reinforce itself when perpetuating a racist society. And, as mentioned, Jim Crow is just an incarnation of a long running sentiment.

I'm just going to assume you weren't implying that blacks were for segregation.

Wnope, who are you to say that black didn't want segregation?

In fact, I recall one of the great black heroes, Malcolm X, being for black seperatism and opposing integration.

But, Wnope, I guess you speak for the black community.

Now, as you mentioned slavery was maintained by the state, as was segregation through Jim Crow.

In a free market, slavery would have ended earlier for most blacks.

You might want to study Malcom X's speeches a BIT more closely if you think him supporting black separatism is the same as supporting southern segregation.

Black seperatism is the ultimate segregation... and he did oppose integration

Unless you believe the civil rights movement was a puppet act by white people, I find it hard to think that blacks were in favor of segregation.

As far as I know, civil rights was passed by a white congress. I have no reason to think it had popular support among blacks.

The international slave trade existed independently of the state. The states main choice was either to close or open the slave trade. America closed the slave trade (very anti-free market), but the south kept their slaves anyway. If you destroyed the government in the south in the 1800s (more free market), the slave trade would have RE-OPENED if anything.

Ya, I never said slavery wouldnt exist without a state, only that it would have ended earlier.

Free markets only exist in relation to their agents and infrastructure. How would applying a "free market" to America in 1760 or 1820 change things? Why wasn't the "free market" applying?

Without a state, only an intersubjective consensus could have protected slavery. This would have corroded earlier than state support for slavery did.

Also, do you still maintain restaurants would have desegregated in the Jim Crow south with just "free market forces?"

Absolutely, except for the margin... This is certainly true.
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:49:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:44:50 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Liberals are always trying to assume Libertarians are anarchists. It's the only way they can appear superior to libertarians in their philosophy. We would be happy with 1/3 the federal government we have now. That would still allow for national defense, roads, a safety net, schools and anything else states wanted to provide.

I am an anti statist, which basically means I am a anarchist.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:52:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:49:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:44:50 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Liberals are always trying to assume Libertarians are anarchists. It's the only way they can appear superior to libertarians in their philosophy. We would be happy with 1/3 the federal government we have now. That would still allow for national defense, roads, a safety net, schools and anything else states wanted to provide.

I am an anti statist, which basically means I am a anarchist.

I always mistake the word anarchist for antichrist, they look so similar.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:54:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:52:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:49:42 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:44:50 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Liberals are always trying to assume Libertarians are anarchists. It's the only way they can appear superior to libertarians in their philosophy. We would be happy with 1/3 the federal government we have now. That would still allow for national defense, roads, a safety net, schools and anything else states wanted to provide.

I am an anti statist, which basically means I am a anarchist.

I always mistake the word anarchist for antichrist, they look so similar.

Good to know.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:53:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:48:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:36:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
Whenever the oppressed try to do anything, Jim Crow allowed the southern institution to legally reinforce itself when perpetuating a racist society. And, as mentioned, Jim Crow is just an incarnation of a long running sentiment.

I'm just going to assume you weren't implying that blacks were for segregation.

Wnope, who are you to say that black didn't want segregation?

In fact, I recall one of the great black heroes, Malcolm X, being for black seperatism and opposing integration.

But, Wnope, I guess you speak for the black community.

Now, as you mentioned slavery was maintained by the state, as was segregation through Jim Crow.

In a free market, slavery would have ended earlier for most blacks.

You might want to study Malcom X's speeches a BIT more closely if you think him supporting black separatism is the same as supporting southern segregation.

Black seperatism is the ultimate segregation... and he did oppose integration

Unless you believe the civil rights movement was a puppet act by white people, I find it hard to think that blacks were in favor of segregation.

As far as I know, civil rights was passed by a white congress. I have no reason to think it had popular support among blacks.

The international slave trade existed independently of the state. The states main choice was either to close or open the slave trade. America closed the slave trade (very anti-free market), but the south kept their slaves anyway. If you destroyed the government in the south in the 1800s (more free market), the slave trade would have RE-OPENED if anything.

Ya, I never said slavery wouldnt exist without a state, only that it would have ended earlier.

Free markets only exist in relation to their agents and infrastructure. How would applying a "free market" to America in 1760 or 1820 change things? Why wasn't the "free market" applying?

Without a state, only an intersubjective consensus could have protected slavery. This would have corroded earlier than state support for slavery did.

Also, do you still maintain restaurants would have desegregated in the Jim Crow south with just "free market forces?"

Absolutely, except for the margin... This is certainly true.

"Southern segregation" is a system where blacks are oppressed. Malcom X was not in favor a system that oppressed blacks. He wanted black seperatism. If you want to talk about whether that's a good thing, we can. But he was NOT for southern segregation.

We are talking about southern segregation. Not modern white nationalism, not roman slavery, we're talking about Jim Crow segregation in America. Jim Crow didn't create a new set of norms, it stopped the federal government from changing how the south functioned.

The civil rights movement came before the civil rights act. "White congress" took decades to act on the civil rights movement to pass a bill. How you can confound the civil rights act with the movement is beyond me.

You realize that the international slave trade was not controlled by a state, right? States either acted with or against the slave trade. Some states outlawed it and others didn't. I don't know where this stateless "free market" utopia of yours is, but it doesn't seem to be located in reality.

The slave trade only slowed because STATES banned it. Now, slavery CONTINUES in the free market but it is illegal. Slavery is now "illegal trafficking." These days slavery thrives where there is NO STATE intervention.

So what on earth makes you think lacking a state leads to the disappearance of slavery?

And again, why would a free market incentivize restaurant owners to desegregate when segregation has increasing returns in the south? Without state intervention, the free market would encourage segregation of services.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:14:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:53:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:48:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:36:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
Whenever the oppressed try to do anything, Jim Crow allowed the southern institution to legally reinforce itself when perpetuating a racist society. And, as mentioned, Jim Crow is just an incarnation of a long running sentiment.

I'm just going to assume you weren't implying that blacks were for segregation.

Wnope, who are you to say that black didn't want segregation?

In fact, I recall one of the great black heroes, Malcolm X, being for black seperatism and opposing integration.

But, Wnope, I guess you speak for the black community.

Now, as you mentioned slavery was maintained by the state, as was segregation through Jim Crow.

In a free market, slavery would have ended earlier for most blacks.

You might want to study Malcom X's speeches a BIT more closely if you think him supporting black separatism is the same as supporting southern segregation.

Black seperatism is the ultimate segregation... and he did oppose integration

Unless you believe the civil rights movement was a puppet act by white people, I find it hard to think that blacks were in favor of segregation.

As far as I know, civil rights was passed by a white congress. I have no reason to think it had popular support among blacks.

The international slave trade existed independently of the state. The states main choice was either to close or open the slave trade. America closed the slave trade (very anti-free market), but the south kept their slaves anyway. If you destroyed the government in the south in the 1800s (more free market), the slave trade would have RE-OPENED if anything.

Ya, I never said slavery wouldnt exist without a state, only that it would have ended earlier.

Free markets only exist in relation to their agents and infrastructure. How would applying a "free market" to America in 1760 or 1820 change things? Why wasn't the "free market" applying?

Without a state, only an intersubjective consensus could have protected slavery. This would have corroded earlier than state support for slavery did.

Also, do you still maintain restaurants would have desegregated in the Jim Crow south with just "free market forces?"

Absolutely, except for the margin... This is certainly true.

"Southern segregation" is a system where blacks are oppressed. Malcom X was not in favor a system that oppressed blacks. He wanted black seperatism. If you want to talk about whether that's a good thing, we can. But he was NOT for southern segregation.

So, he was for segregation. Lol, segregation is a term, not a historic period.

We are talking about southern segregation. Not modern white nationalism, not roman slavery, we're talking about Jim Crow segregation in America. Jim Crow didn't create a new set of norms, it stopped the federal government from changing how the south functioned.

Why won't you just come out and admit that Jim Crow Laws were enforced by state governments?


The civil rights movement came before the civil rights act. "White congress" took decades to act on the civil rights movement to pass a bill. How you can confound the civil rights act with the movement is beyond me.

Okay, how do you know that the majority of blacks supported the movement?

You realize that the international slave trade was not controlled by a state, right? States either acted with or against the slave trade. Some states outlawed it and others didn't. I don't know where this stateless "free market" utopia of yours is, but it doesn't seem to be located in reality.

States did exist, and slavery existed with them. So, obviously, the state, despite its magical powers, did not stop slavery. And, I also wonder who protected slaveowners ownership of slaves?

Who enforced the fugitive slave act?

The state...

And, this free market "utopia" is reality...

The slave trade only slowed because STATES banned it. Now, slavery CONTINUES in the free market but it is illegal. Slavery is now "illegal trafficking." These days slavery thrives where there is NO STATE intervention.

Everything you said here is retarded.... You really think the state is the only reason institutionalized slavery ended?

So what on earth makes you think lacking a state leads to the disappearance of slavery?

It doesnt... But, a state is also unable to stop slavery if people are for slavery...

And again, why would a free market incentivize restaurant owners to desegregate when segregation has increasing returns in the south? Without state intervention, the free market would encourage segregation of services.

In that context, segregation would probably make everyone better off...
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:19:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:17:03 PM, mongeese wrote:
It appears that either the OP is unreliable or Jon Stewart is terrible at writing questions that are questions.

Google tells us it sure ain't the OP's fault if it's anyone's.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:19:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with Wnope that it is most likely that segregation would have persisted irregardless of whether or not there was a free market. There would probably be less segregation, but it would still be there. However, I think that the government should not be able to force businesses to serve people, just like the government shouldn't be able to force people to let others into their homes- after all, it is private property.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:20:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:17:03 PM, mongeese wrote:
It appears that either the OP is unreliable or Jon Stewart is terrible at writing questions that are questions.

It's the latter.
President of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:23:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
However, Stewart implies that only the state is able to provide roads, infrastructure, and a social safety net. He is incorrect in this assertion. These are all things that people demand, and, in a society free of state coercion, individuals will provide these things.

The unemployed or homeless can't pay for a safety net, so in that case there is no "demand" in the traditional sense of a good being demanded by a consumer base with the possibility of acquiring capital. In reality, these people would be dependent on charity - and if there is none, I guess someone's gonna starve.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:36:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:23:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
However, Stewart implies that only the state is able to provide roads, infrastructure, and a social safety net. He is incorrect in this assertion. These are all things that people demand, and, in a society free of state coercion, individuals will provide these things.

The unemployed or homeless can't pay for a safety net, so in that case there is no "demand" in the traditional sense of a good being demanded by a consumer base with the possibility of acquiring capital.

No demand by the homeless, but a demand by others.

In reality, these people would be dependent on charity - and if there is none, I guess someone's gonna starve.

In the US, a homeless man can make more then minimum wage just by begging. Some people who are not homeless do this for a living.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:45:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No demand by the homeless, but a demand by others.

A demand by others to provide a safety net for the homeless or mentally ill? At first thought it seems to be either charity or social security.

In the US, a homeless man can make more then minimum wage just by begging. Some people who are not homeless do this for a living.

So are the homeless well off? I'm aware that some of them can earn more than minimum wage, but in my experience are destitute. What happens if the homeless man gets sick in a libertarian society?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 10:08:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:23:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
However, Stewart implies that only the state is able to provide roads, infrastructure, and a social safety net. He is incorrect in this assertion. These are all things that people demand, and, in a society free of state coercion, individuals will provide these things.

The unemployed or homeless can't pay for a safety net, so in that case there is no "demand" in the traditional sense of a good being demanded by a consumer base with the possibility of acquiring capital. In reality, these people would be dependent on charity - and if there is none, I guess someone's gonna starve.

Stupid
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 10:22:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:14:11 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:53:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:48:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
"Southern segregation" is a system where blacks are oppressed. Malcom X was not in favor a system that oppressed blacks. He wanted black seperatism. If you want to talk about whether that's a good thing, we can. But he was NOT for southern segregation.

So, he was for segregation. Lol, segregation is a term, not a historic period.

We are talking about southern segregation. Not modern white nationalism, not roman slavery, we're talking about Jim Crow segregation in America. Jim Crow didn't create a new set of norms, it stopped the federal government from changing how the south functioned.

Why won't you just come out and admit that Jim Crow Laws were enforced by state governments?



The civil rights movement came before the civil rights act. "White congress" took decades to act on the civil rights movement to pass a bill. How you can confound the civil rights act with the movement is beyond me.

Okay, how do you know that the majority of blacks supported the movement?

You realize that the international slave trade was not controlled by a state, right? States either acted with or against the slave trade. Some states outlawed it and others didn't. I don't know where this stateless "free market" utopia of yours is, but it doesn't seem to be located in reality.

States did exist, and slavery existed with them. So, obviously, the state, despite its magical powers, did not stop slavery. And, I also wonder who protected slaveowners ownership of slaves?

Who enforced the fugitive slave act?

The state...

And, this free market "utopia" is reality...

The slave trade only slowed because STATES banned it. Now, slavery CONTINUES in the free market but it is illegal. Slavery is now "illegal trafficking." These days slavery thrives where there is NO STATE intervention.

Everything you said here is retarded.... You really think the state is the only reason institutionalized slavery ended?

So what on earth makes you think lacking a state leads to the disappearance of slavery?

It doesnt... But, a state is also unable to stop slavery if people are for slavery...

And again, why would a free market incentivize restaurant owners to desegregate when segregation has increasing returns in the south? Without state intervention, the free market would encourage segregation of services.

In that context, segregation would probably make everyone better off...

You don't think "southern segregation" refers to a specific period of time? Have you ever taken a sociology class? Southern segregation refers to the post-reconstruction period through the civil rights acts.

How do I know a majority of blacks supported a movement which lead to them being allowed to go to white restaurants, use white facilities, and enter white schools? Because they are human beings. Unless you think black people are some sort of alien race, no one with the slightest bit of sanity would prefer to have a system in place that systematically disenfranchises them physically, sexually, legally, and emotionally.

Jesus christ, do you understand what it was like? White men could rape black women, and the woman had no legal right to take them to court. A black man could consensually have sex with a white woman and be LEGALLY executed.

Only a monster would think human beings would want those sorts of conditions.

You say a state is unable to stop slavery if its people want slavery. If that were true, slavery would exist in the South. It doesn't.

And again, why would a free market incentivize restaurant owners to desegregate when segregation has increasing returns in the south? Without state intervention, the free market would encourage segregation of services.

In that context, segregation would probably make everyone better off...

No, segregation makes blacks much, much, much, much worse off.

The free market during southern segregation for the restaurant and services sector had increasing returns for racism. If other conditions created increasing returns for anti-semitism, the free market would tend towards anti-semiticism.

That's how diminishing versus increasing marginal returns works. That's what FREE MARKET RULZ fails in ahistorical application to reality.