Is America heading towards fascism?
13 Nov 2012, 3:55 pm
Having seen the civil rights act come up time and again as a "gotcha!" question to libertarians, I gave it a bit of thought and had an interesting scenario occur to me; could allowing market forces rather than government forces to end Jim Crow have taken longer, but been more thorough? It's a genuine question to me, I mean I'd like to think they would have, but I'd like to believe that so I'm discounting my own opinion to some extent. My reasoning is that if integration of private business was "forced" by the market, that it would have generated less resentment and possibly lead to less prejudice in the future, i.e. now. To use a left field example, if I was in the milk business and wanted sell raw milk, I'd have very different reactions if people didn't want to take the risk and so I couldn't carry it due to lack of profit vs the state decreeing that I wasn't allowed to carry it.
I'm also thinking of similar programs like affirmative action that have caused real backlash, even amongst young people not otherwise prone to racial hatreds, and how they may have been short sighted in helping out some individuals at the cost of entrenching vicious stereotypes, e.g. blacks are lazy and unintelligent and wouldn't be able to get into college without a set aside.
I certainly know that even here in liberal Seattle that few things would bring out the inner redneck in my friends and (especially) their parents like the idea of being passed over for school admission because of their race. In fact I think the very liberalness of Seattle might have made the reactions stronger because Seattleites think of themselves as being so progressive that the policy felt like a betrayal and a slap in the face; "how DARE they punish us for the actions of those hillbillies in the South, WE'RE not racists, etc".
Just to say again, the whole thing is conjecture on my part, just me thinking through a question that quite often seems to get hurled at libertarians.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Nov 2012, 5:27 pm
Dox47 wrote:
Having seen the civil rights act come up time and again as a "gotcha!" question to libertarians, I gave it a bit of thought and had an interesting scenario occur to me; could allowing market forces rather than government forces to end Jim Crow have taken longer, but been more thorough? It's a genuine question to me, I mean I'd like to think they would have, but I'd like to believe that so I'm discounting my own opinion to some extent. My reasoning is that if integration of private business was "forced" by the market, that it would have generated less resentment and possibly lead to less prejudice in the future, i.e. now. To use a left field example, if I was in the milk business and wanted sell raw milk, I'd have very different reactions if people didn't want to take the risk and so I couldn't carry it due to lack of profit vs the state decreeing that I wasn't allowed to carry it.
I'm also thinking of similar programs like affirmative action that have caused real backlash, even amongst young people not otherwise prone to racial hatreds, and how they may have been short sighted in helping out some individuals at the cost of entrenching vicious stereotypes, e.g. blacks are lazy and unintelligent and wouldn't be able to get into college without a set aside.
I certainly know that even here in liberal Seattle that few things would bring out the inner redneck in my friends and (especially) their parents like the idea of being passed over for school admission because of their race. In fact I think the very liberalness of Seattle might have made the reactions stronger because Seattleites think of themselves as being so progressive that the policy felt like a betrayal and a slap in the face; "how DARE they punish us for the actions of those hillbillies in the South, WE'RE not racists, etc".
Just to say again, the whole thing is conjecture on my part, just me thinking through a question that quite often seems to get hurled at libertarians.
I'm also thinking of similar programs like affirmative action that have caused real backlash, even amongst young people not otherwise prone to racial hatreds, and how they may have been short sighted in helping out some individuals at the cost of entrenching vicious stereotypes, e.g. blacks are lazy and unintelligent and wouldn't be able to get into college without a set aside.
I certainly know that even here in liberal Seattle that few things would bring out the inner redneck in my friends and (especially) their parents like the idea of being passed over for school admission because of their race. In fact I think the very liberalness of Seattle might have made the reactions stronger because Seattleites think of themselves as being so progressive that the policy felt like a betrayal and a slap in the face; "how DARE they punish us for the actions of those hillbillies in the South, WE'RE not racists, etc".
Just to say again, the whole thing is conjecture on my part, just me thinking through a question that quite often seems to get hurled at libertarians.
The free market had had a hundred years between the Civil War and the civil rights movement to change segregation, but nothing had been accomplished without the government making the change occur.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Nov 2012, 5:30 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The fact of the matter is, though, during segregation, white customers wouldn't have withheld their patronage of such businesses. Far from it, they provided a focal point of resistance against desegregation.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Which is their right. One has the right to boycott and one has the right not to boycott.
In any case the owner of a restaurant has the right to provide service or withhold service from whomever he pleases. That is the nature of private ownership. Forcing a restaurant owner to cook for someone he does not want around him is involuntary servitude which is prohibited by the 13 th Amendment.
ruveyn
But what about the rights of black patrons? Do the rights of the business owner trump theirs?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Nov 2012, 5:33 pm
androbot2084 wrote:
For me the Libertarians have a compelling argument. Can one really legislate morality? You can write civil rights laws, but none of these laws can change a persons heart so there must be a better way. But it is a 2 way street. Libertarians insist that laws protecting property rights remain on the books and that these laws should be vigorously enforced.
Actually, they had. Since civil rights legislation, the grandchildren of pro-segregationists are much more open minded and accepting of their fellow citizens, regardless of color.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Nov 2012, 6:16 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
But what about the rights of black patrons? Do the rights of the business owner trump theirs?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The patrons have no rights whatsoever to demand service from an unwilling party. There is no legal or moral duty to feed the public either in part or in totality. Refusal to serve black customers creates an opportunity to open a restaurant that specially caters to black customers.
If what you said were the case, a horny man has a right to demand sexual services from a women whether she is willing or not.
You are an intelligent fellow generally, but you are blind to what is voluntary and what is forced by violent means or threats.
The government is force. Plain and simple. Laws are enforced at gunpoint. An unjust law which violates an individual's right to choose with whom he associates is tyranny, plain and simple.
Good guys do not force strangers to do what they are unwilling to do.
ruveyn
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Nov 2012, 6:21 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But what about the rights of black patrons? Do the rights of the business owner trump theirs?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The patrons have no rights whatsoever to demand service from an unwilling party. There is no legal or moral duty to feed the public either in part or in totality. Refusal to serve black customers creates an opportunity to open a restaurant that specially caters to black customers.
If what you said were the case, a horny man has a right to demand sexual services from a women whether she is willing or not.
You are an intelligent fellow generally, but you are blind to what is voluntary and what is forced by violent means or threats.
The government is force. Plain and simple. Laws are enforced at gunpoint. An unjust law which violates an individual's right to choose with whom he associates is tyranny, plain and simple.
Good guys do not force strangers to do what they are unwilling to do.
ruveyn
As I recall, though, segregation in privately owned businesses was often the law of many states. Blacks were in fact forced to eat at a different counter, or not eat at the establishment at all.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Nov 2012, 6:25 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I recall, though, segregation in privately owned businesses was often the law of many states. Blacks were in fact forced to eat at a different counter, or not eat at the establishment at all.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Such a law is unjust for the very reasons I stated. A law -forbidding- association which otherwise might take place is unjust and it is tyranny. Such a law should be struck down.
Association between humans MUST be voluntary, and the MUST be free which is to associate or refuse to associate. Humans must be free to relate to each other or not to relate to each other.
You seem to miss the point. Why? The essence of the libertarian stand is freedom of association. That is at the heart of it.
ruveyn
13 Nov 2012, 6:27 pm
Dox47 wrote:
Having seen the civil rights act come up time and again as a "gotcha!" question to libertarians, I gave it a bit of thought and had an interesting scenario occur to me; could allowing market forces rather than government forces to end Jim Crow have taken longer, but been more thorough? It's a genuine question to me, I mean I'd like to think they would have, but I'd like to believe that so I'm discounting my own opinion to some extent. My reasoning is that if integration of private business was "forced" by the market, that it would have generated less resentment and possibly lead to less prejudice in the future, i.e. now. To use a left field example, if I was in the milk business and wanted sell raw milk, I'd have very different reactions if people didn't want to take the risk and so I couldn't carry it due to lack of profit vs the state decreeing that I wasn't allowed to carry it.
I'm also thinking of similar programs like affirmative action that have caused real backlash, even amongst young people not otherwise prone to racial hatreds, and how they may have been short sighted in helping out some individuals at the cost of entrenching vicious stereotypes, e.g. blacks are lazy and unintelligent and wouldn't be able to get into college without a set aside.
I certainly know that even here in liberal Seattle that few things would bring out the inner redneck in my friends and (especially) their parents like the idea of being passed over for school admission because of their race. In fact I think the very liberalness of Seattle might have made the reactions stronger because Seattleites think of themselves as being so progressive that the policy felt like a betrayal and a slap in the face; "how DARE they punish us for the actions of those hillbillies in the South, WE'RE not racists, etc".
Just to say again, the whole thing is conjecture on my part, just me thinking through a question that quite often seems to get hurled at libertarians.
I'm also thinking of similar programs like affirmative action that have caused real backlash, even amongst young people not otherwise prone to racial hatreds, and how they may have been short sighted in helping out some individuals at the cost of entrenching vicious stereotypes, e.g. blacks are lazy and unintelligent and wouldn't be able to get into college without a set aside.
I certainly know that even here in liberal Seattle that few things would bring out the inner redneck in my friends and (especially) their parents like the idea of being passed over for school admission because of their race. In fact I think the very liberalness of Seattle might have made the reactions stronger because Seattleites think of themselves as being so progressive that the policy felt like a betrayal and a slap in the face; "how DARE they punish us for the actions of those hillbillies in the South, WE'RE not racists, etc".
Just to say again, the whole thing is conjecture on my part, just me thinking through a question that quite often seems to get hurled at libertarians.
Liberals use this as the "Gotcha!" scenario for Libertarians for two reasons. One, it's the only "Gotcha!" scenario that really works for them; and two, it plays right into liberal politics which is using legislation to force redistribution of wealth and social power. The sticking point of this scenario is that while one social group gains, another loses from govt intervention. This stokes resentment and can actually make the problem worse. Of courses liberals have no regard for the social group that loses out for whatever reason. Everyone is now forced to play on the same field at the same level, regardless of their actual ability to do so.
The upshot of all the is there's not true equality in this scenario. The one entity that always wins in this situation is the govt, which is always using situations like this to expand it's own power. And that's where the "fair" aspect ends, because the only true power is the govt as it gets to pick the winners and losers. And will always pick in favor of expanding it's influence.
This is one of the reasons why modern liberalism and the democratic party are being labeled as "Neo-Fascists". They seek a govt that is run solely by there own party. (Which they just achieved in California, pray for us.) Fascism has little regard for personal liberty and is only interested in expanding the reach of it's own sphere of influence. Although I suspect their goal is more a movement towards Soviet Fascism then traditional Italian Fascism.
I always fall back on one prevalent quote from one of my favorite philosophers, the late, great John Hughes, when you get into sticky -ism, BS.
"I do have a test today, that wasn't BS. It's on European Socialism. I mean, what's the point? I'm not European, I don't plan on being European, and who gives a crap if their socialists? They could be fascists or anarchists. It still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car...
...Not that I condone Fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -isms, as a whole, are not good. A person shouldn't believe in an -ism. He should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus, I'd still have to bum rides off of people."
From Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Hughes was a modern day Confucius. At least I think so.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Nov 2012, 7:04 pm
Oh come, now. Nobody lost anything when blacks were given legal and social equality with whites. If anything, a side benefit had been that the rest of the country no longer saw the south as a bigoted hole, and began to invest there, increasing everyone's standard of living.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Nov 2012, 7:14 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Oh come, now. Nobody lost anything when blacks were given legal and social equality with whites. If anything, a side benefit had been that the rest of the country no longer saw the south as a bigoted hole, and began to invest there, increasing everyone's standard of living.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Do you believe that unjust means to a just end is kosher?
The real break through came with the reform of voting regulations in 1965. For the first time since the U.S. sold out on reconstruction in 1877 and the Jim Crow laws were put in, Black southrons were able to register and to vote. That was a proper move because it enforced the 14th Amendment concerning equal protection of the laws.
ruveyn
13 Nov 2012, 7:15 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Oh come, now. Nobody lost anything when blacks were given legal and social equality with whites. If anything, a side benefit had been that the rest of the country no longer saw the south as a bigoted hole, and began to invest there, increasing everyone's standard of living.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
That isn't the point.
Govt intervention didn't solve the problem, people came to the conclusions on their own. And some people are never going to come to that conclusion but they're entitled to their opinion. And while we're on the subject of bigotry, what would you say about people like Samuel L. Jackson, Kanye West or George Lopez who are openly bigoted against whites? Does that fall into your doctrine of fair play? It certainly seems to because no one says a word about it. Except people like me, who point out the hypocritical nature of their opinions and are openly mocked for it. But they're Americans and they're entitled to their opinion, as am I.
And I'm not a racist, but I sure as s**t hate hypocrites.
13 Nov 2012, 7:19 pm
DiscardedWhisper wrote:
Liberals use this as the "Gotcha!" scenario for Libertarians for two reasons. One, it's the only "Gotcha!" scenario that really works for them; and two, it plays right into liberal politics which is using legislation to force redistribution of wealth and social power. The sticking point of this scenario is that while one social group gains, another loses from govt intervention. This stokes resentment and can actually make the problem worse. Of courses liberals have no regard for the social group that loses out for whatever reason. Everyone is now forced to play on the same field at the same level, regardless of their actual ability to do so.
The upshot of all the is there's not true equality in this scenario. The one entity that always wins in this situation is the govt, which is always using situations like this to expand it's own power. And that's where the "fair" aspect ends, because the only true power is the govt as it gets to pick the winners and losers. And will always pick in favor of expanding it's influence.
This is one of the reasons why modern liberalism and the democratic party are being labeled as "Neo-Fascists". They seek a govt that is run solely by there own party. (Which they just achieved in California, pray for us.) Fascism has little regard for personal liberty and is only interested in expanding the reach of it's own sphere of influence. Although I suspect their goal is more a movement towards Soviet Fascism then traditional Italian Fascism.
The upshot of all the is there's not true equality in this scenario. The one entity that always wins in this situation is the govt, which is always using situations like this to expand it's own power. And that's where the "fair" aspect ends, because the only true power is the govt as it gets to pick the winners and losers. And will always pick in favor of expanding it's influence.
This is one of the reasons why modern liberalism and the democratic party are being labeled as "Neo-Fascists". They seek a govt that is run solely by there own party. (Which they just achieved in California, pray for us.) Fascism has little regard for personal liberty and is only interested in expanding the reach of it's own sphere of influence. Although I suspect their goal is more a movement towards Soviet Fascism then traditional Italian Fascism.
This right here is the problem with American "libertarianism". This kind of tin-foil-hat nonsense makes you sound like a Glenn Beck fan. You are not a "libertarian". You are a conservative reactionary. Your cover is blown. If it were 1860 you'd probably be whining about fascist government not caring about southern slave-owning plantation owners losing out. With your kind of talk so rampant I wouldn't be surprised if the president gets shot. Your kind obviously has a deep disgust for democracy. If someone does get killed your ilk better be prepared for the blood to flow.
13 Nov 2012, 7:22 pm
marshall wrote:
This right here is the problem with American "libertarianism". This kind of tin-foil-hat nonsense makes you sound like a Glenn Beck fan. You are not a "libertarian". You are a conservative reactionary. Your cover is blown. If it were 1860 you'd probably be whining about fascist government not caring about southern slave-owning plantation owners losing out. With your kind of talk so rampant I wouldn't be surprised if the president gets shot. Your kind obviously has a deep disgust for democracy. If someone does get killed your ilk better be prepared for the blood to flow.
A bigot on the left is still a bigot.
Now I have a plain question for you: What is wrong with voluntary association where party A is free to associate with B (if it is mutually agreed up) or free not to associate with B.
Do you have a problem with this principle?
ruveyn
13 Nov 2012, 7:30 pm
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
This right here is the problem with American "libertarianism". This kind of tin-foil-hat nonsense makes you sound like a Glenn Beck fan. You are not a "libertarian". You are a conservative reactionary. Your cover is blown. If it were 1860 you'd probably be whining about fascist government not caring about southern slave-owning plantation owners losing out. With your kind of talk so rampant I wouldn't be surprised if the president gets shot. Your kind obviously has a deep disgust for democracy. If someone does get killed your ilk better be prepared for the blood to flow.
A bigot on the left is still a bigot.
Now I have a plain question for you: What is wrong with voluntary association where party A is free to associate with B (if it is mutually agreed up) or free not to associate with B.
Do you have a problem with this principle?
ruveyn
I have a problem with insane racist Bircher fanatics throwing around the word "Fascist" to describe civil rights legislation in the 1960s. I know the smell of a closeted racist as*hole.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Nov 2012, 7:38 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Oh come, now. Nobody lost anything when blacks were given legal and social equality with whites. If anything, a side benefit had been that the rest of the country no longer saw the south as a bigoted hole, and began to invest there, increasing everyone's standard of living.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Do you believe that unjust means to a just end is kosher?
The real break through came with the reform of voting regulations in 1965. For the first time since the U.S. sold out on reconstruction in 1877 and the Jim Crow laws were put in, Black southrons were able to register and to vote. That was a proper move because it enforced the 14th Amendment concerning equal protection of the laws.
ruveyn
Yep, I see it a Kosher. The reform of voting regulations was ultimately a package deal with legally allowing black customers to eat at the same lunch counter as whites.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
