|
|
#91
05-03-2007, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Cite One Restriction of Freedom from the Right....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It took big government intervention such as the Civil Rights Act and Supreme Court cases like Brown by "activist judges" to bring an end to practices like segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, bans on interacial marriage. [/ QUOTE ] And it took government to *start* those practices. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong again. Those were the social norms of the time and had nothing to do with the government. [/ QUOTE ] Why were those practices *mandated* by *legislation*, exactly? [/ QUOTE ] I'll bet racism, discrimination, and slavery were also practiced in areas settled by Southerners before govts were formed. Wouldn't you? [/ QUOTE ] 1) I don't really know... where did "southerners" settle before governments were formed? Also, last time I checked, all of the above were also practiced by northerners. 2) I have no problem with individuals practicing discrimination. If you want to exclude people from your property, that's 100% your perrogative. Jim Crow *laws* were impositions of segregationist principles ONTO businesses (and indivuduals) even if they *wanted* to cater to minorities (which many, many firms did, since they want to make *money*). Again, if "everyone" was doing it, there would be no need to impose such laws, would there? If you read the text I quoted, you'll note the specific practices in question: [ QUOTE ] segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, bans on interacial marriage. [/ QUOTE ] Segregation: vague, but generally refers to stuff like public schools, which can't be segregated in the first place absent government intervention. Poll taxes: obvious Literacy tests: for *voting* - again, requires government intervention on the front end. Bans on interracial marriage: again, obvious. There's a BAN. Who banned it? Government, duh. 
|
|
#92
05-03-2007, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cite One Restriction of Freedom from the Right....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It took big government intervention such as the Civil Rights Act and Supreme Court cases like Brown by "activist judges" to bring an end to practices like segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, bans on interacial marriage. [/ QUOTE ] And it took government to *start* those practices. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong again. Those were the social norms of the time and had nothing to do with the government. [/ QUOTE ] Why were those practices *mandated* by *legislation*, exactly? [/ QUOTE ] I'll bet racism, discrimination, and slavery were also practiced in areas settled by Southerners before govts were formed. Wouldn't you? [/ QUOTE ] 1) I don't really know... where did "southerners" settle before governments were formed? Also, last time I checked, all of the above were also practiced by northerners. 2) I have no problem with individuals practicing discrimination. If you want to exclude people from your property, that's 100% your perrogative. Jim Crow *laws* were impositions of segregationist principles ONTO businesses (and indivuduals) even if they *wanted* to cater to minorities (which many, many firms did, since they want to make *money*). Again, if "everyone" was doing it, there would be no need to impose such laws, would there? If you read the text I quoted, you'll note the specific practices in question: [ QUOTE ] segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, bans on interacial marriage. [/ QUOTE ] Segregation: vague, but generally refers to stuff like public schools, which can't be segregated in the first place absent government intervention. Poll taxes: obvious Literacy tests: for *voting* - again, requires government intervention on the front end. Bans on interracial marriage: again, obvious. There's a BAN. Who banned it? Government, duh. [/ QUOTE ] My only point was... Govt did some bad things and govt undid these bad things != Many of these/similar bad things wouldn't have existed without govt. Your post of "AHA! Gov't did that!" implied (at least to me) that you were blaming these things on govt. The fact that the North and South had different laws about treatment of blacks in a general sense (I know exceptions occur) is only a reflection on the differing values of the two cultures, as the previous poster was pointing out. You say people would have been free to cater to blacks in the South if not for govt because they like money? Well, I'd bet my every dollar to your dime that those businesses that catered to blacks in the Deep South would have gone bankrupt due to pressure from other businesses and violent threats if no govt existed. Of course we can't prove it either way, but you are looking thru rose-colored glasses if you think blacks would have had choices provided by a market under those conditions. And you know that blacks there didn't have the money to hire private protection under those conditions, so don't bother starting down that path.
|
|
#93
05-03-2007, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cite One Restriction of Freedom from the Right....
[ QUOTE ]
My only point was... Govt did some bad things and govt undid these bad things != Many of these/similar bad things wouldn't have existed without govt. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say "bad things wouldn't have existed without government." But the list that was actually presented consisted of things that only existed because of government. [ QUOTE ] Your post of "AHA! Gov't did that!" implied (at least to me) that you were blaming these things on govt. [/ QUOTE ] Yes. The things that were presented in that list were caused by government. This does not imply that all bad things ever were caused by government. [ QUOTE ] The fact that the North and South had different laws about treatment of blacks in a general sense (I know exceptions occur) is only a reflection on the differing values of the two cultures, as the previous poster was pointing out. You say people would have been free to cater to blacks in the South if not for govt because they like money? Well, I'd bet my every dollar to your dime that those businesses that catered to blacks in the Deep South would have gone bankrupt due to pressure from other businesses and violent threats if no govt existed. Of course we can't prove it either way, but you are looking thru rose-colored glasses if you think blacks would have had choices provided by a market under those conditions. [/ QUOTE ] This is laughably untrue. Do you even know what Jim Crow is? Obviously SOME businesses DID serve minorities. Rosa Parks was not barred from busses, only from particular usage of busses - by LAW, law that was OPPOSED by many businesses. The fact that some lynch mob may or may not have done something doesn't excuse legislation of oppression. "oh well, people are going to kill each other anyway, might as well make a law mandating it!"
|
|
#94
05-03-2007, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cite One Restriction of Freedom from the Right....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I find it curious how you, pvn, Nielsio and other freedom-loving ACists are so quick to try and make oppression more a left-wing phenomenon. Maybe I am just reading you guys wrong. If so, I'm sorry. [/ QUOTE ] Fwiw, I've also noticed that a lot of the ACists here seem to sound republican in non-AC threads. I don't think you're imagining it. [/ QUOTE ] The board has a ton more Democrats than Republicans, so what do you expect? I'm also more likely to argue with a Democrat than a Republican simply because I feel that Republicans are more likely to be more stubborn and close-minded, so there's less point in arguing with them. [/ QUOTE ] Ha! I'm not so sure about that one. I, for one, am incredibly close-minded. [/ QUOTE ] Well, I did say "feel." A lot of this feeling comes from the inability to argue with people who make arguments rooted in religion. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Arguing with Democrats more certainly makes one seem more Republican I guess. [/ QUOTE ] That's true. I also think that libertarians are more commonly ex-GOP than ex-democrat [/ QUOTE ] Not me. I only identified as a Democrat as a child though, and it doesn't really count. As soon as I heard about libertarians at age 16 or so, I realized that's what I was.
|
|
#95
05-03-2007, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cite One Restriction of Freedom from the Right....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] My only point was... Govt did some bad things and govt undid these bad things != Many of these/similar bad things wouldn't have existed without govt. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say "bad things wouldn't have existed without government." But the list that was actually presented consisted of things that only existed because of government. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but you aren't dumb and certainly know that the list was not all inclusive of the racism and discrimination practiced. Either way, my point was broader than just the specific list in question. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Your post of "AHA! Gov't did that!" implied (at least to me) that you were blaming these things on govt. [/ QUOTE ] Yes. The things that were presented in that list were caused by government. This does not imply that all bad things ever were caused by government. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. We've found common ground. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The fact that the North and South had different laws about treatment of blacks in a general sense (I know exceptions occur) is only a reflection on the differing values of the two cultures, as the previous poster was pointing out. You say people would have been free to cater to blacks in the South if not for govt because they like money? Well, I'd bet my every dollar to your dime that those businesses that catered to blacks in the Deep South would have gone bankrupt due to pressure from other businesses and violent threats if no govt existed. Of course we can't prove it either way, but you are looking thru rose-colored glasses if you think blacks would have had choices provided by a market under those conditions. [/ QUOTE ] This is laughably untrue. Do you even know what Jim Crow is? Obviously SOME businesses DID serve minorities. Rosa Parks was not barred from busses, only from particular usage of busses - by LAW, law that was OPPOSED by many businesses. The fact that some lynch mob may or may not have done something doesn't excuse legislation of oppression. [/ QUOTE ] I don't excuse legislation of oppression. My point was that oppression was occurring there with or without govt, so was not just a govt-induced phenomenon. [ QUOTE ] "oh well, people are going to kill each other anyway, might as well make a law mandating it!" [/ QUOTE ] That is garbage and you know it. Saying oppression would have and was occurring anyway does not mean I endorse a law mandating it.
|
|
#96
05-03-2007, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cite One Restriction of Freedom from the Right....
[ QUOTE ]
I'd bet my every dollar to your dime that those businesses that catered to blacks in the Deep South would have gone bankrupt due to pressure from other businesses and violent threats if no govt existed. Of course we can't prove it either way, [/ QUOTE ] If we could, I'd happily make the bet with the odds reversed. Businesses did cater to blacks all the time until the government stopped them. [ QUOTE ] but you are looking thru rose-colored glasses if you think blacks would have had choices provided by a market under those conditions. And you know that blacks there didn't have the money to hire private protection under those conditions, so don't bother starting down that path. [/ QUOTE ] Even supposing they didn't have the money for something as cheap as protection (something I don't agree with), they could simply form their own protection organization under AC.
|
|
#97
05-03-2007, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cite One Restriction of Freedom from the Right....
[ QUOTE ]
Even supposing they didn't have the money for something as cheap as protection (something I don't agree with), they could simply form their own protection organization under AC. [/ QUOTE ] You think Group A who has 1/1000 the resources of Group B can form an adequate protection? Give me a break. Yeah, guns are the great equalizer. But what if most of the businesses are selling guns to Group B and they own most of the gun shops anyway? Seriously, stop with the "they can just buy their protection" arguments because then I can just say that the other Group can just buy even more "protection" to crush their protection. So long as Group B has athe majority of resources and leverage to place on businesses, etc., then Group A is screwed... stop pretending otherwise and that they're only screwed if govt exists. They're screwed either way, for chrissakes.
|
|
#98
05-03-2007, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cite One Restriction of Freedom from the Right....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Even supposing they didn't have the money for something as cheap as protection (something I don't agree with), they could simply form their own protection organization under AC. [/ QUOTE ] You think Group A who has 1/1000 the resources of Group B can form an adequate protection? Give me a break. Yeah, guns are the great equalizer. But what if most of the businesses are selling guns to Group B and they own most of the gun shops anyway? Seriously, stop with the "they can just buy their protection" arguments because then I can just say that the other Group can just buy even more "protection" to crush their protection. So long as Group B has athe majority of resources and leverage to place on businesses, etc., then Group A is screwed... stop pretending otherwise and that they're only screwed if govt exists. They're screwed either way, for chrissakes. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, in this case, they're screwed. Death Star Objection 101. But *if this had actually been the case in the south*, *why would there be any need to legislate prohibitions against trading with minorities*?
|
|
#99
05-03-2007, 06:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cite One Restriction of Freedom from the Right....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Even supposing they didn't have the money for something as cheap as protection (something I don't agree with), they could simply form their own protection organization under AC. [/ QUOTE ] You think Group A who has 1/1000 the resources of Group B can form an adequate protection? Give me a break. Yeah, guns are the great equalizer. But what if most of the businesses are selling guns to Group B and they own most of the gun shops anyway? Seriously, stop with the "they can just buy their protection" arguments because then I can just say that the other Group can just buy even more "protection" to crush their protection. So long as Group B has athe majority of resources and leverage to place on businesses, etc., then Group A is screwed... stop pretending otherwise and that they're only screwed if govt exists. They're screwed either way, for chrissakes. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, in this case, they're screwed. Death Star Objection 101. But *if this had actually been the case in the south*, *why would there be any need to legislate prohibitions against trading with minorities*? [/ QUOTE ] Because govt was a convenient tool to oppress those who'd trade with them. I don't dispute that. But that doesn't mean oppression wouldn't have been applied if govt wasn't available. In fact, in the end, govt became a tool to stop the oppression. So I could just as easily say that if govt was used to stop the oppression, then it must have existed without govt action.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
