Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Ron Paul on the Civil Rights Act

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 9:23:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I read an interesting transcript from his qualms about the CRA and I am wanting to know whether or not he is right.

"The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society."
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 9:29:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 9:23:53 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I read an interesting transcript from his qualms about the CRA and I am wanting to know whether or not he is right.

"The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society."

This is a great answer to your question.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 3:18:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The answer will be more complicated. Since the USFG as well as state governments control things like roads (thus transportation) and police and defense, withing the context of a government it is certainly possible to justify controlling virtually every aspect of life. For instance, since the government controls roads most businesses rely on it to exist and operate. Therefore one can see why the government might think it has legitimate power over various policies even if they exist on private property. Similar to an investor having say in how a business is run. However, we have to look at the bigger picture. The government unjustly controls these things in the first place and so can't exactly use that to forward an argument for further unjust control. I don't think minarchists can answer this objection sufficiently. Anarchy FTW.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:51:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:47:23 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
Ron Paul kinda gives off a George Wallace vibe when he talks about the CRA

It's standard libertarian freedom of association. George Wallace was a bitter racist while most libertarians are simply going off of the right to private property. Even though I think the government has no right to force integration of private businesses, I do agree that social pressure should be undertaken to stop such practices i.e. boycott, spreading information, etc.
: 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.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:53:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 4:22:07 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Why don't we just kill everyone?

I'm starting to think that that's the best solution :/
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:45:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:53:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/17/2012 4:22:07 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Why don't we just kill everyone?

I'm starting to think that that's the best solution :/

That's my math teacher's solution.
My legend begins in the 12th century
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:59:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 9:23:53 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I read an interesting transcript from his qualms about the CRA and I am wanting to know whether or not he is right.

"The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society."

Of course forced integration increased racial tensions. When a bunch of white people don't want black people in their town, and the government says "listen, rednecks, you need to let them in the town" then no sh!t you're going to see an uptick in racial tension.

Might as well argue that ending slavery caused a huge uptick in racial tension (you can bet your @ss it did).
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:47:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ron Paul should have stayed fringe. Four years ago, when all the hipsters replaced Che Guevara with him, he was simply an intriguing mystery.

Now I'm fully aware of what a complete crazy he is.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:49:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:47:24 AM, Ren wrote:
Ron Paul should have stayed fringe. Four years ago, when all the hipsters replaced Che Guevara with him, he was simply an intriguing mystery.

Now I'm fully aware of what a complete crazy he is.

Orwell was very perceptive on how we use certain political buzz words in place of actual argument. Oh he's fringe, that must equate to crazy. Because nothing except that which is accepted by the majority can be correct?
: 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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:13:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:49:37 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:47:24 AM, Ren wrote:
Ron Paul should have stayed fringe. Four years ago, when all the hipsters replaced Che Guevara with him, he was simply an intriguing mystery.

Now I'm fully aware of what a complete crazy he is.

Orwell was very perceptive on how we use certain political buzz words in place of actual argument. Oh he's fringe, that must equate to crazy. Because nothing except that which is accepted by the majority can be correct?

That's not what I said.

I said that he should have remained fringe, because when he was, I didn't know enough about him to realize that he's a looney toon. Now that he's completely out in the open and before the public's eye, everyone is well aware of his nonsensical initiatives, such as a 60 year social regression.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:27:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:13:10 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:49:37 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:47:24 AM, Ren wrote:
Ron Paul should have stayed fringe. Four years ago, when all the hipsters replaced Che Guevara with him, he was simply an intriguing mystery.

Now I'm fully aware of what a complete crazy he is.

Orwell was very perceptive on how we use certain political buzz words in place of actual argument. Oh he's fringe, that must equate to crazy. Because nothing except that which is accepted by the majority can be correct?

That's not what I said.

I said that he should have remained fringe, because when he was, I didn't know enough about him to realize that he's a looney toon. Now that he's completely out in the open and before the public's eye, everyone is well aware of his nonsensical initiatives, such as a 60 year social regression.

Funny how you can write an entire paragraph with no real substance constituting your claim that he's a "looney toon". Come back when you can write something substantive. k?
: 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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 3:03:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:27:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 2:13:10 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:49:37 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:47:24 AM, Ren wrote:
Ron Paul should have stayed fringe. Four years ago, when all the hipsters replaced Che Guevara with him, he was simply an intriguing mystery.

Now I'm fully aware of what a complete crazy he is.

Orwell was very perceptive on how we use certain political buzz words in place of actual argument. Oh he's fringe, that must equate to crazy. Because nothing except that which is accepted by the majority can be correct?

That's not what I said.

I said that he should have remained fringe, because when he was, I didn't know enough about him to realize that he's a looney toon. Now that he's completely out in the open and before the public's eye, everyone is well aware of his nonsensical initiatives, such as a 60 year social regression.

Funny how you can write an entire paragraph with no real substance constituting your claim that he's a "looney toon". Come back when you can write something substantive. k?

Lol, geez, don't get all sensitive over the old dude. It was simply two sentences meant to clarify you on my point.

Now that I know about him, I realize that he's crazy. I did give you a bit of quantification -- his primary interests lay in an idealized 60 year regression. You can ignore that all you want, but it's right there, and now I've written it twice.

What says you about the good ol' days, when everyone was straight, blonde or brunette, and Christian?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 3:26:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 3:03:32 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/18/2012 2:27:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:

Funny how you can write an entire paragraph with no real substance constituting your claim that he's a "looney toon". Come back when you can write something substantive. k?

Lol, geez, don't get all sensitive over the old dude. It was simply two sentences meant to clarify you on my point.

I don't support Ron Paul or any other person who wants to control the government. He's a politician so I'm categorically opposed to him, regardless of my sympathies to his ideals in relation to those of the Republocrats.

Now that I know about him, I realize that he's crazy. I did give you a bit of quantification -- his primary interests lay in an idealized 60 year regression. You can ignore that all you want, but it's right there, and now I've written it twice.

60 year regression, say that would be back to 1952. Let's see what we had in '52 that good old Mr. Paul is not okay with. The Federal Reserve for one has been around for a bit longer than 60 years. Also there was public segregation. Say what you want about private discrimination but there's a difference and Paul isn't supportive of the former. There are other aspects of Paul's thought that are also completely out of line with your naive conception. Paul favors things like full drug legalization, legalized prostitution, favors non-interventionist foreign policy like that pre-WW1, etc. These things along with many other actions he is against were in place during the 50's and 60's.

Use buzz words like social regression all you want, but it doesn't prove anything. Paul's idealized society isn't found there or anywhere really. I don't think anyone's can be found at any point in history.

What says you about the good ol' days, when everyone was straight, blonde or brunette, and Christian?

Paul is in favor of SSM and has been quite vocal against introduction of religion into public law. He's personally a Christian but its somewhat admirable the extent he's gone not to have that influence him. Compare that to when Obama was against SSM on religious grounds until he decided to do some election year pandering.
: 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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 12:05:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 3:26:13 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The Federal Reserve for one has been around for a bit longer than 60 years.

Clearly, I said social regression.

Also there was public segregation.

Ron Paul opposes Affirmative Action, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and releases racist newsletters.

Paul favors things like full drug legalization,

The political movement against drugs didn't really start until the 60's.

legalized prostitution, favors non-interventionist foreign policy like that pre-WW1, etc.

Non-interventionist policy, such as the policies we had before there was even a cause for intervention?

These things along with many other actions he is against were in place during the 50's and 60's.

Yeah, that's a negative. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but Ron Paul clearly prefers a whitewashed, conservative society.

Use buzz words like social regression all you want

Lol, you don't like the media, do you? Well, I don't blame you, but I'm not a journalist, kid.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 12:21:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 12:05:25 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/18/2012 3:26:13 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The Federal Reserve for one has been around for a bit longer than 60 years.

Clearly, I said social regression.

You said regression to the what he thought were the gold old days of 60 years ago. I pointed out his biggest foe in public policy and what he blames most of the financial collapse on (The Federal Reserve) was still around 60 years ago.

Also there was public segregation.

Ron Paul opposes Affirmative Action, the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

He opposes forceful public segregation and consequently any parts of the CRA that puts that out. He is in favor of allowing PRIVATE enterprises to segregate if they so choose but believes that since everyone is forced to pay into the State system that it would be unjust to discriminate in that area.

and releases racist newsletters.

Lol u trolling me? Not only did he NOT release any racist newsletters but he denied any affiliation with them as soon as they were brought to his attention. I bet you also think Obama was Kenyan right because that conspiracy has about as much merit.

Paul favors things like full drug legalization,

The political movement against drugs didn't really start until the 60's.

The libertarian principles on which he derives his support for drug legalization have been around since long before that. Self ownership has been here a while.

legalized prostitution, favors non-interventionist foreign policy like that pre-WW1, etc.

Non-interventionist policy, such as the policies we had before there was even a cause for intervention?

Non-interventionist policy such as the views of the Old Right against involving the world in everyone else's business.

These things along with many other actions he is against were in place during the 50's and 60's.

Yeah, that's a negative. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but Ron Paul clearly prefers a whitewashed, conservative society.

Evidence, tits, or GTFO.

Use buzz words like social regression all you want

Lol, you don't like the media, do you? Well, I don't blame you, but I'm not a journalist, kid.

Wut? I was just pointing out that you say social regression in place of any real argument. See Orwell on the ill effects of political terminology and the like.
: 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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 12:46:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 12:21:28 AM, socialpinko wrote:

You said regression to the what he thought were the gold old days of 60 years ago. I pointed out his biggest foe in public policy and what he blames most of the financial collapse on (The Federal Reserve) was still around 60 years ago.

That's a pretty weak argument. I understand that you're trying to separate his ideals from any given time period, but he is a conservative, and his ideal society is much more like the 50's than the way it is now.

He opposes forceful public segregation and consequently any parts of the CRA that puts that out. He is in favor of allowing PRIVATE enterprises to segregate if they so choose but believes that since everyone is forced to pay into the State system that it would be unjust to discriminate in that area.

He literally opposes the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action.

Like, literally. It isn't an inference: he directly opposes those legislations.

Lol u trolling me? Not only did he NOT release any racist newsletters but he denied any affiliation with them as soon as they were brought to his attention. I bet you also think Obama was Kenyan right because that conspiracy has about as much merit.

Mm. Well, idk. The newsletters were consistent with his perspectives and positions. Nonetheless, if that's true and I'm wrong, so be it.

Wut? I was just pointing out that you say social regression in place of any real argument. See Orwell on the ill effects of political terminology and the like.

George Orwell, a journalist, was criticizing journalism.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 1:02:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 12:46:23 AM, Ren wrote:
At 6/19/2012 12:21:28 AM, socialpinko wrote:

You said regression to the what he thought were the gold old days of 60 years ago. I pointed out his biggest foe in public policy and what he blames most of the financial collapse on (The Federal Reserve) was still around 60 years ago.

That's a pretty weak argument. I understand that you're trying to separate his ideals from any given time period, but he is a conservative, and his ideal society is much more like the 50's than the way it is now.

He's a libertarian. A conservative will favor a time that is socially conservative. A liberal will favor a time that is socially liberal. A libertarian will favor a time where force and violence (even if by the government) is kept to as low a level as possible. That was certainly not the 50's or 60's.

He opposes forceful public segregation and consequently any parts of the CRA that puts that out. He is in favor of allowing PRIVATE enterprises to segregate if they so choose but believes that since everyone is forced to pay into the State system that it would be unjust to discriminate in that area.


He literally opposes the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action.

Like, literally. It isn't an inference: he directly opposes those legislations.

I know brah. We disagree on why he opposed them. He opposed them because parts of the CRA went towards forcefully integrating the private sphere. Even though he's for public integration, as probably the most consistent to his principles in politics, he cannot support legislation that goes against those principles. If the CRA only had to do with public integration he would have supported it.

Lol u trolling me? Not only did he NOT release any racist newsletters but he denied any affiliation with them as soon as they were brought to his attention. I bet you also think Obama was Kenyan right because that conspiracy has about as much merit.

Mm. Well, idk. The newsletters were consistent with his perspectives and positions. Nonetheless, if that's true and I'm wrong, so be it.

Of course. If you're against welfare or affirmative action then that's consistent with racism. Makes perfect sense brah.
: 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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 10:18:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 1:02:49 AM, socialpinko wrote:
A libertarian will favor a time where force and violence (even if by the government) is kept to as low a level as possible. That was certainly not the 50's or 60's.

Again with the curveball views on libertarianism.

I understood libertarianism to be a economic perspective specifically promotes unbridled, unmitigated laissez-faire capitalism. Libertarians typically value state governments as opposed to federal, and anarchist libertarians are somewhat fringe. As far as I understood it, Ron Paul was the prior -- he wants to remove focus and power from the federal government, and transfer it to state governments. It's true that he wants to reduce military power and funding, but that's just retarded in it's own right. It's true that there's no historical foundation for that specific initiative, but that's because it's insane. The world is globalizing, whether Ron Paul, or any single, or even handful, of American politicians like it or not.

Clearly, I wasn't suggesting that Ron Paul literally wants to bring back enormous Cadillacs with no power steering or reverse the repeal of Jim Crowe laws. I was just saying that his interests are a regression rather than a progression, that's much more like times past than it is like today, or the general trajectory of our political and social climate.

I know brah. We disagree on why he opposed them. He opposed them because parts of the CRA went towards forcefully integrating the private sphere. Even though he's for public integration, as probably the most consistent to his principles in politics, he cannot support legislation that goes against those principles. If the CRA only had to do with public integration he would have supported it.

Lies.

I would clearly understand that if it were true, but it's not.

Please, tell me which Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 infringes on the rights of private enterprises?

I will tell you that Title VII provides this sanction:

"In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise."

What says you to that, broski?

Of course. If you're against welfare or affirmative action then that's consistent with racism. Makes perfect sense brah.

I'm about 70% against welfare.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 10:42:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 1:04:43 AM, mongeese wrote:
Anyone who still thinks that Ron Paul is racist ought to watch this video.


Lmfao, what the hell?!

Lmfaooooo

Okay, to recap:

This dude's wife was in labor, and the hospital wouldn't allow him to see his wife (she was white, he was black). He kept harassing the nurse in an effort to see her, though (who wouldn't), and she called the cops on him. Suddenly, Ron Paul appears out of nowhere like Jesus (perhaps dispatch sent him -- "This is a Ron Paul Christ job"), and walks into the delivery room himself to, er, "take care of [this poor man's] wife." The wife subsequently gives birth to a stillborn, and Ron Paul says, "I'll front the bill."

LmfaooOoOOoooOoo

Wow. That's on some scary shiit, almost.

Way uncool.

See, I kind of thought Ron Paul as just crazy.

Now, after seeing that video, I'm really entertaining the thought that he might be a serious racist.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 10:47:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 10:18:00 AM, Ren wrote:

I understood libertarianism to be a economic perspective specifically promotes unbridled, unmitigated laissez-faire capitalism. Libertarians typically value state governments as opposed to federal, and anarchist libertarians are somewhat fringe. As far as I understood it, Ron Paul was the prior

You're mixing up two definitions of libertarianism, one a political program and one a philosophy. Paul subscribes to the latter. He believes aggression is never justified and the State necessarily employs aggression so every aspect of it ought to be as small as possible. Hence he doesn't necessarily support state governments just because he doesn't like the federal.

-- he wants to remove focus and power from the federal government, and transfer it to state governments. It's true that he wants to reduce military power and funding, but that's just retarded in it's own right. It's true that there's no historical foundation for that specific initiative, but that's because it's insane. The world is globalizing, whether Ron Paul, or any single, or even handful, of American politicians like it or not.

Cool story. I'm sure bombing poor third world countries and making Al Queda's recruiting initiatives that much better will do much more towards protecting American lives then just leaving them the hell alone. Paul isn't against defense, just fvcking with people who don't need to be fvcked with.

Clearly, I wasn't suggesting that Ron Paul literally wants to bring back enormous Cadillacs with no power steering or reverse the repeal of Jim Crowe laws. I was just saying that his interests are a regression rather than a progression, that's much more like times past than it is like today, or the general trajectory of our political and social climate.

That's debatable. In some aspects we're more libertarian today then ever. Economic conditions aren't as controlled by the government as they were under mercantilism or feudalism and socially we're probably the most libertarian we've ever been in history. It's all about what way you choose to apply libertarianism to historical analysis.

Lies.
I would clearly understand that if it were true, but it's not.
Please, tell me which Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 infringes on the rights of private enterprises?

Title VII. Most of it is fine but this and some other aspects of it would have to go.

I will tell you that Title VII provides this sanction:

"In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise."

Yeah, you can discriminate under limited conditions to actually run your business. But it provides limitations and that's the point. Libertarians think a private business ought to be able to discriminate for any reason a la freedom of association.
: 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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 11:15:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 10:47:34 AM, socialpinko wrote:

You're mixing up two definitions of libertarianism, one a political program and one a philosophy. Paul subscribes to the latter. He believes aggression is never justified and the State necessarily employs aggression so every aspect of it ought to be as small as possible. Hence he doesn't necessarily support state governments just because he doesn't like the federal.

Hmmm.

Cool story. I'm sure bombing poor third world countries and making Al Queda's recruiting initiatives that much better will do much more towards protecting American lives then just leaving them the hell alone. Paul isn't against defense, just fvcking with people who don't need to be fvcked with.

Well... from a personal vantage, all practical considerations regarding how the world works and how it's run aside, I completely agree.

That's debatable. In some aspects we're more libertarian today then ever. Economic conditions aren't as controlled by the government as they were under mercantilism or feudalism and socially we're probably the most libertarian we've ever been in history. It's all about what way you choose to apply libertarianism to historical analysis.

I didn't think that the whole libertarianism thing was about control as much as it was about reliance. Big Business is not subjugated in this country; it is the largest single influence on politics. From what I've read, it's the subsidization, bailouts, and disenfranchisement of small and private businesses that pisses off libertarians. If I'm wrong, and it's about some sort of purported governmental tyranny, then that only serves to further invalidate it in my eyes.

Title VII. Most of it is fine but this and some other aspects of it would have to go.

Like what?

"In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise."

Yeah, you can discriminate under limited conditions to actually run your business. But it provides limitations and that's the point. Libertarians think a private business ought to be able to discriminate for any reason a la freedom of association.

What the hell -- all businesses are private unless they're federal or state. In other words, you're talking about every business except public services. In other words, given the social climate when the Civil Rights Act was passed, it would have failed if it didn't extend to every private business in the public realm.

All private businesses that operate privately have no restrictions as set by the Civil Rights Act. That's why we have organizations like the NAACP. Dur.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 11:50:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 11:15:17 AM, Ren wrote:

Well... from a personal vantage, all practical considerations regarding how the world works and how it's run aside, I completely agree.

That's always good. I think most people personally agree with the position of not fvcking with the world but think it's somehow necessary for defense. Blowback is the strongest refutation of this point though. See Afghanistan and our contribution to the rise of the Taliban or Iran and our contribution to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

I didn't think that the whole libertarianism thing was about control as much as it was about reliance. Big Business is not subjugated in this country; it is the largest single influence on politics. From what I've read, it's the subsidization, bailouts, and disenfranchisement of small and private businesses that pisses off libertarians. If I'm wrong, and it's about some sort of purported governmental tyranny, then that only serves to further invalidate it in my eyes.

Well it's both really. Libertarians don't like it when government helps or hurts business. Besides prohibiting force and fraud by corporations, libertarians oppose government intervention.

Title VII. Most of it is fine but this and some other aspects of it would have to go.

Like what?

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

"(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"


Interestingly enough on a side note, there is a clause in the title allowing for getting around the provisions laid down if the employee is a Communist.

"(f) Members of Communist Party or Communist-action or Communist-front organizations
As used in this subchapter, the phrase "unlawful employment practice" shall not be deemed to include any action or measure taken by an employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency with respect to an individual who is a member of the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950"



What the hell -- all businesses are private unless they're federal or state. In other words, you're talking about every business except public services. In other words, given the social climate when the Civil Rights Act was passed, it would have failed if it didn't extend to every private business in the public realm.

It would have applied to services used by everyone i.e. public services. Regardless your point is unsubstantiated. I think the best thing the government could have done was lead by example, showing that desegregating public services didn't lead to social strife or black men raping white women or whatever it was racists were afraid of. It would have also contributed to changing popular opinion which in itself is what caused private discrimination to be profitable in the first place.

All private businesses that operate privately have no restrictions as set by the Civil Rights Act. That's why we have organizations like the NAACP. Dur.

See my elaboration on Title VII.
: 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.