Genarlow Wilson -- Georgia is insane

[Thug Bubbles]

Prisons would likely not go away, and idiotic convictions surely wouldn't. Whatever punishment scheme that ACism produces, stupid cases like this won't disappear. To blame statism for this is being intellectually dishonest.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
Prisons would likely not go away, and idiotic convictions surely wouldn't. Whatever punishment scheme that ACism produces, stupid cases like this won't disappear. To blame statism for this is being intellectually dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arbitration companies that made rulings completely at odds with the moral sense of the majority of the population would be quickly out-competed. You might have an argument in more borderline cases - but not in this case. Here we have a situation where the vast majority of people view the end result as ridiculous, this would not happen in a free market.

You may want to bring up the point that if a society as a whole is prejudiced in some way, these prejudices will be reflected in that region's arbitration systems. True. However, in that society the same prejudices will also be reflected by state policy as well, the difference being that the state entrenches the prejudice systematically and removes the market incentives to profit from the irrational social climate (and thus incentivise a trend away from bigotry).

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the fact that he's black is why this happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be right. I've been informed hundreds of times by posters here that government *prevents* racism and *punishes* racists.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn, this is intellectual dishonesty. You know damn well that because some govt tries to avoid X does not mean that X never happens anywhere, and you know that X still happens even without govt. Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it happens without government. But when Joe Schmoe doesn't like you because of your skin color, you just don't get to eat in his restaurant. When Mr. Government Agent doesn't, you get 10 years in the pokey.

The point being that statist who cry ZOMG RACISTS WILL RUN AMOK ignore the fact that the proposed "solution" creates even more opportunity for racists, and on a larger scale, with greater consequences for the targets, and YOU get to pay for it all!

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Joe Schmoe can kill you because of your race, with or without a govt, but of course you use "you won't eat in his restaurant" as an example of the worst case under AC. Please, man, stop already.

2) I have never ever heard a statist say that govt will make all racism disappear. I know you've heard a straw man. Stop it already.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Joe Schmoe can kill you because of your race, with or without a govt, but of course you use "you won't eat in his restaurant" as an example of the worst case under AC. Please, man, stop already.

[/ QUOTE ]

But killing is still "against the rules" in or out of AC.

Refusing to seat someone in your restaurant is "legal" under AC (though it is illegal in the status quo).

Throwing someone in the pokey for 10 years for a blow job is a real, permitted possibility under the rules of the status quo, whereas it isn't under any reasonable projection of AC.

That's the tradeoff. Throwing "killing you because of your race" is a strawman. I know you've "heard a strawman"....

[ QUOTE ]
2) I have never ever heard a statist say that govt will make all racism disappear. I know you've heard a straw man. Stop it already.

[/ QUOTE ]

"prevents" =/= "make ALL disappear".

Adding more opportunity for racists to make their targets uncomfortable, and doing so at taxpayer expense is basically the EXACT OPPOSITE of prevention.

[ALawPoker]

The blowback of racism is worth talking about. I hate [censored] like this not because I particularly care about people I don't know who happen to be black, but because there are obvious consequences which may affect me. Reminds me of war.

What's bad is bad for real reasons and will have real consequences.

It makes me wonder how dampened racial tension would actually be if it weren't for the state systematically seeing color and forcing its policies on us. When people stop thinking in color and seeing individuals as part of broad groups (and stop seeing real consequences articially tacked on to those groups), then there becomes no reason to discriminate. Some always will, and they will face the consequences of that irrationality. But you can't end discrimination by systematically monopolizing it.

The sad part is that people who hold my view usually come off as the "bad guy" if we don't articulate it perfectly (when really, if we're determined to play moral high ground, it is quite obviously the other way around). It's amazing how noble stupid people think they are.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
It makes me wonder how dampened racial tension would actually be if it weren't for the state systematically seeing color and forcing its policies on us.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Georgia would be way less racist, and certainly wouldn't send black kids to jail for oral sex with white kids, were it not for affirmative action?

Really?

ps: I am against affirmative action

pps: the average Georgian in a significant position of authority, ie a middle aged to old politician/judge/policeman, would have been a teenager somewhere between 1950 and 1980. hmm.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It makes me wonder how dampened racial tension would actually be if it weren't for the state systematically seeing color and forcing its policies on us.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Georgia would be way less racist, and certainly wouldn't send black kids to jail for oral sex with white kids, were it not for affirmative action?

Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Durrrr, no. It's not that simple, and I made no such claim.

A harmful act (of racism) begs a certain "blowback" of harmful consequence. As long as some people identify other people as members of some "group" and act accordingly then they are engaging in racism, and racism has harmful repercussions. So, doing racist things is bad.

All instances of racism will tend to disintegrate when we stop all forms of it. When a state engages in racism it is still racism, and so it still carries the same real consequences. Maybe some business owners will resent the policies and see more reason to discriminate against prospective black employees. The state is not magic and it is still subject to natural human consequence.

Would all instances of racial tension suddenly disappear if the state's affirmative action and similar policies disappeared? Obviously not. Not immediately. But the problem is worsened and not improved when people let a state see race and factor it into their decisions.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
All instances of racism will tend to disintegrate when we stop all forms of it. When a state engages in racism it is still racism, and so it still carries the same real consequences. Maybe some business owners will resent the policies and see more reason to discriminate against prospective black employees. The state is not magic and it is still subject to natural human consequence.

Would all instances of racial tension suddenly disappear if the state's affirmative action and similar policies disappeared? Obviously not. Not immediately. But the problem is worsened and not improved when people let a state see race and factor it into their decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, and I'm with you on all of this. However, that's got very little to do with this particular case.

Edit: it's also really questionable to me how you got 'government does not work' out of a case of a bunch of racist local authority figures running amok. No, seriously, the most that someone "can" do in a state of anarchy in a community of racists is refuse to seat blacks in his restaurant? Really?

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the fact that he's black is why this happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be right. I've been informed hundreds of times by posters here that government *prevents* racism and *punishes* racists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me...government encourages racism unless it behooves the power of the state to punish it.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26...ef=mpstoryview

This story is bizarre. Basically, someone was sentenced to TEN YEARS of prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old when he was 17.

???

Is that even illegal? Apparently so, and Georgia has recently changed this sort of conduct between consenting minors to a misdemeanor rather than a felony. Whew, what a concession, I'm glad it is only mildly illegal for high schoolers to give each other head. It's good that minors often will not be charged for murder, but could face TEN YEARS for sexual relations with someone two years younger than them.

This just blows my mind. It's only one example, and [censored] happens, but if this isn't good evidence that a state monopoly on justice is really, really bad, then I don't know what is. Show me a private arbitrator who decides that the 17-year-old owes the 15-year-old something equal to 10 years of prison and I will show you a private arbitrator that goes out of business fast. <font color="red"> Totally wrong, in many states (or "geographical areas" if you were under AC) </font> It just couldn't happen. It's the type of injustice that would be totally inconceivable if state bureaucracy was not in charge. <font color="red">total nonsense. if deep-pocket daddy of the girl wanted to find "
justice at any price" it would be easier when all justice is bought and sold by definition </font>

I mean, when I heard the story in the background playing on CNN, I first thought he was an adult who had consensual relations with a 15-year-old, and I was like "hmm, ya, 10 years is ridiculous, it's good that they overturned that." I assumed it was some sort of reasonable debate, and still thought it was newsworthy. But then the fact that HE WAS SEVENTEEN and it was a two year difference just makes this impressively ridiculous. This could easily be a high school junior getting head from a sophomore, if that puts it in the correct perspective. TEN YEARS IN PRISON!

Obviously the fact that he's black is why this happened. <font color="red"> ORLY? support what it is that makes this "obvious" </font> But the point is this happened to a human being in the United States of America in 2005. Isn't that [censored] scary?

Government does not work. I used to think it was at least good for the sake of a clear authority, but I came to my senses on that, and examples like this are just empirical icing on the cake.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> it works far better than anything proposed on this site would, thats for sure </font>