Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

Is Moyers pantheistic? I was thinking of reanimating Walt Whitman. I'd vote for Moyers regardless of his religious beliefs.

Moyers seems to have adopted a 'many paths to god' thing. And I have to say, I like that for religious people. I really do. It keeps them from fighting each other. But it is just being too cowardly to be an atheist.

 

[Mardak]

So time to repeat Civil Rights Act?

I'm assuming you mean repeal? Who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act?

 

[Ether_Snake]

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "when you live away from the city you need to build your own"? Because to me that seems to make absolutely no sense. The world is become dramatically more urban as time moves forward, de-urbanizing is generally a point brought up by agriculturists who believe we should reject technology and live in the country growing our own food.

It's cyclical like many things in life.

For the economy to continue to function with continued urbanization, you would need central governments of the kind that are incompatible with today's politics.

It's quite simple. Urbanization leads to a reduction in individual creativity and demand and causes income to be increasingly sacrificed to rising property prices. The more people move in the cities, the higher property prices will be. Consider people heat sources, if they all come together in one location you have a very hot location. Since property is a necessity, greater and greater amounts of income are sacrificed to it at the detriment of the proper functioning of a free market economy where one's ability to spend on what he wishes to spend is vital. When people have a large portion of their income that isn't spent on obligatory expenses, they spend on their dreams, and this drives creativity. Creativity is limited in cities because the system provides for you, but at the economic cost of a loss of individual-driven demand.

In a city, we have economies of scale. Instead of having our own vehicles, we can commute. Instead of having our own garden, we can have community gardens (or none at all). Instead of having our own pools, we have community pools, etc. Add to this a continued reduction of available space.

This process leads individual creativity to be atrophied over time, and due to a lack of creativity people are more willing to sacrifice a greater amount of money to obligatory expenses. Transit becomes ever more costly. Property prices continually rise. Available space is reduced. Etc. People accept this reduction in available discretionary income because they have no need to be creative, or to dream.

But if we implement massive transit and infrastructure projects that seek to de-urbanize the country, then people will live over a more distributed area. The "heat" will spread and warm the country as a whole, figuratively speaking, instead of heating up a handful of locations excessively. As long as people can move quickly from one place to another, and as long as they can easily work further and further away from their homes, people will have bigger houses, more land, and will have more reasons to be creative since they can express their needs themselves rather than have their needs expressed by the collectivity. This is a true social-economy compatible with free market and democracy. You have individual-driven demand, and no parts of the economy that can heat up to the point where it atrophies the individual's creativity and emancipation.

You need your own house, with your own backyard, your own pool, your own garden, your own motorcycle, your own electricity generator, etc.

With current technological advancements, cities have no reasons to continue to be central to the economy. The next "revolution" needs to be one of de-urbanization that will lead to increased creativity, increased demand, increased production, and a resurrection of the American dream. There's plenty of space available in the US for this to take place, and the technology to facilitate this is at our doorstep.

Add in free health care and education for all (until college).

 

[KHarvey16]

Why does someone need to die for the market to change? You make it seem like the only way for a plane to fail is catastrophically.

There's a good reason why planes have two engines. If one manufacturer's engine forces an airline to spend more money on maintenance or repair or replacement, they will find another provider that makes better, more efficient engines.

What if more lax regulations result in more deaths, but overall incur less cost to the airlines and the manufacturers? Let's say that because standards are relaxed, 2 planes per year crash that otherwise would not have. Overall, this saves everyone money but 2 planeloads of people die that didn't have to if more money was spent.

Justified?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I'm assuming you mean repeal? Who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act?

Ron Paul is against the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Wall]

That's rich, given that Obama administration officials just went on record with the New York Times saying that's exactly what Obama wants to do in his second term. Well, not exactly, but close enough.

I saw that article too. Pretty depressing.

Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/politics/14econ.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

It is disturbing that currently there are no actual economists advising the President. Just political hacks. Plouffe and Daley need to go away and find something else to do with their lives - but they won't.

I hope the Democrats can re-take the House and block whatever President Obama wants to pull as part of a "grand bargain". Assuming he gets re-elected, that is. If any President ever deserved a 39 percent approval rating, the second lowest for a post-war President at this point in their terms, it is him. Too bad the Republican party completely lost its mind.

Edited to add:

I can't believe that after lax regulations caused an economic crash, an oil rig to explode and spew oil all over the Gulf of Mexico and the gulf coast, and in Japan contributed to a nuclear accident, all within the past 3 years, we are seriously debating whether letting "the market" self regulate critical areas that involve potentially life threatening situations is a good idea.

 

[speculawyer]

Why does someone need to die for the market to change? You make it seem like the only way for a plane to fail is catastrophically.

There's a good reason why planes have two engines. If one manufacturer's engine forces an airline to spend more money on maintenance or repair or replacement, they will find another provider that makes better, more efficient engines.

When was the last time a plane crashed due to all the engines dying? I can't even remember such a crash.

 

[Sinoox]

if you're so fed up with America, feel free to move to a country that practices Ron Paul's policies of a strong interventionist military, constitutionally mandated religious morality, and a severely limited federal government; like Pakistan.

I honestly think you're joking. Ron Paul an interventionist? What the hell have you been watching? I would think that would be the one thing people would be able to grasp since he's talked about it the most. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, plain and simple. If you don't like the constitution maybe you should be the one that takes parting. I would happily leave if there actually was a country that followed America's law of the land, unfortunately there isn't and Pakistan sure as hell doesn't come close to being one.

If you think re-electing Obama is a bad idea -- electing an extreme right wing/Teatard would be even worse.

Please elaborate on why you feel that way. What is the point of commenting if you're not even getting your reasoning across to other people? Petty insults aren't going to help your case.

 

[Mardak]

Ron Paul is against the Civil Rights Act.

Just because he would have voted against it doesn't mean he would repeal it.

He votes on principles and would have voted for it if it only were to repeal the government enforced segregation. State government required segregation of public schools, etc.

Ron Paul would have voted against the Civil Rights Act because it encroaches on private property rights by taking away people's liberties.

Saying that Ron Paul would repeal it is inaccurate. Restaurants have signs that say "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."

 

[quaere]

Why does someone need to die for the market to change? You make it seem like the only way for a plane to fail is catastrophically.

There's a good reason why planes have two engines. If one manufacturer's engine forces an airline to spend more money on maintenance or repair or replacement, they will find another provider that makes better, more efficient engines.

Once again, how this works in reality...

Engine manufacturer - we recommend heavy maintenance procedures to be performed on our engines every 10,000 cycles.
Airline executive - Make it 12,000 cycles. That's why we have two engines!

 

[Sinoox]

Just because he would have voted against it doesn't mean he would repeal it.

He votes on principles and would have voted for it if it only were to repeal the government enforced segregation. State government required segregation of public schools, etc.

Ron Paul would have voted against the Civil Rights Act because it encroaches on private property rights by taking away people's liberties.

Saying that Ron Paul would repeal it is inaccurate. Restaurants have signs that say "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."

Thanks for explaining this so I didn't have to.

 

[Mardak]

When was the last time a plane crashed due to all the engines dying? I can't even remember such a crash.

The most recent one I can think of is in 2009 with the double-bird-strike of US Airways Flight 1549 taking off from New York.

Everyone was okay because the pilot was correctly trained and had experience to handle taking down the plane that had no functioning engines.

 

[SomeDude]

Ron Paul's dark secrets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4P87p-Arcw&feature=channel_video_title

 

[empty vessel]

Just because he would have voted against it doesn't mean he would repeal it.

He votes on principles and would have voted for it if it only were to repeal the government enforced segregation. State government required segregation of public schools, etc.

Ron Paul would have voted against the Civil Rights Act because it encroaches on private property rights by taking away people's liberties.

Saying that Ron Paul would repeal it is inaccurate. Restaurants have signs that say "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."

Why do you think it is not a liberty for a black person to be able to enter a market free from racial discrimination? What you mean to say is that you value certain liberties over others. It just so happens that you value the liberty to exclude black people from private property more than the liberty of a black person to engage in trade free from discrimination. I think that value choice is utterly pathetic on your part.

 

[Wall]

On the need for regulations: just google the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Look at how letting the market self regulate worked in that instance.

Here is an example of what you will find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

 

[TacticalFox88]

Just because he would have voted against it doesn't mean he would repeal it.

He votes on principles and would have voted for it if it only were to repeal the government enforced segregation. State government required segregation of public schools, etc.

Ron Paul would have voted against the Civil Rights Act because it encroaches on private property rights by taking away people's liberties.

Saying that Ron Paul would repeal it is inaccurate. Restaurants have signs that say "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."

The amount of cognitive dissonance and subtle racism in this post is frightening

 

[Mardak]

Why do you think it is not a liberty for a black person to be able to enter a market free from racial discrimination?

It's private property. Would it be okay if I just entered your house and did whatever I wanted?

Stores that choose not to serve a black person solely based on the color of his skin are turning away potential customers. Not just of those that are directly turned away by the store owner but also the customers that don't agree to support the store by purchasing their products.

Those customers turned away will spend their money at stores that don't turn away customers. In the long run, which store do you think will have money to survive?

Just because people are forced to do something doesn't make them morally good. In fact it probably makes them angrier and less likely to notice what is morally right.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Sure Wall ... let's ignore the utter failure of the MMS in that disaster. It was so corrupt they had to blow it up and reform it under a new acronym.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/16/deepwater-horizon-inspect_n_578079.html

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/04/mms-thought-deepwater-horizon-was-awardwinningly-safe.html

 

[Sinoox]

Ron Paul's dark secrets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4P87p-Arcw&feature=channel_video_title

It's hilarious to think Paul of all people would hold back on his views, I mean really? There's no evidence to any of this stuff.

 

[empty vessel]

It's private property. Would it be okay if I just entered your house and did whatever I wanted?

If my house was generally open to the public for business and my reason for excluding you was your race, then, yes. That's the question, isn't it? The Civil Rights Act did not require owners of private property to let anybody into their home, so why are you talking about it? You are evading the question: Why do you think it is not a liberty for a black person to be able to enter a market free from racial discrimination?

Stores that choose not to serve a black person solely based on the color of his skin are turning away potential customers. Not just of those that are directly turned away by the store owner but also the customers that don't agree to support the store by purchasing their products.

And? This doesn't answer the question.

Those customers turned away will spend their money at stores that don't turn away customers. In the long run, which store do you think will have money to survive?

We already have the data. It's called the 1950's. You aren't answering my question. You are explaining how you naively envision--despite direct history to the contrary--a system without the Civil Rights Act to work. I am not asking you to explain that to me. I am asking why you think it is not a liberty for a black person to be able to enter a market free from racial discrimination?

When a black person tries to enter a business and is turned away because he is black, has his liberty not been restrained in some way?

Just because people are forced to do something doesn't make them morally good. In fact it probably makes them angrier and less likely to notice what is morally right.

So you favor repealing murder laws?

Sure Wall ... let's ignore the utter failure of the MMS in that disaster. It was so corrupt they had to blow it up and reform it under a new acronym.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/16/deepwater-horizon-inspect_n_578079.html

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/04/mms-thought-deepwater-horizon-was-awardwinningly-safe.html

So is your assertion that government regulation is worse than self-regulation because government regulation can sometimes be a form of self-regulation?

 

[Mardak]

The amount of cognitive dissonance and subtle racism in this post is frightening

You call Ron Paul a racist because he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act but would have voted for repealing Jim Crow Laws?

I bet you would think Ron Paul hated the Dalai Lama because he voted against the federal government spending $30,000 to create a medal to honor the Dalai Lama.

"Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I must rise to oppose this measure granting a congressional gold medal to the 14th Dalai Lama. While I greatly admire and respect His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and fully recognize his tremendous status both as a Buddhist leader and international advocate for peace, I must object to the manner in which this body chooses to honor him.

I wonder if my colleagues see the irony in honoring a devout Buddhist monk with a material gift of gold. The Buddhist tradition, of course, eschews worldly possessions in favor of purity of thought and action. Buddhism urges its practitioners to alleviate the suffering of others whenever possible. I’m sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would rather see $30,000 spent to help those less fortunate, rather than for a feel-good congressional gesture.

We cannot forget that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on medals and awards, no matter how richly deserved. And I reiterate my offer of $100 from my own pocket to pay for this medal–if members wish to honor the Dalai Lama, all we need to do is pay for it ourselves. If all 435 of us contribute, the cost will be roughly $70 each. So while a gold medal sounds like a great idea, it becomes a bit strange when we see the actual cost involved."

How many people took up that offer to spend just $70 per representative to make a medal? Oh wait, they don't have to because they can just steal that money from the taxpayers whether they agree with the medal or not.

 

[Wall]

Sure Wall ... let's ignore the utter failure of the MMS in that disaster. It was so corrupt they had to blow it up and reform it under a new acronym.

I'm not sure what your point is, other than to reinforce the point I was making. The MMS, operating under an administration that opposed industry regulations, became corrupted and therefore ceased to serve its function. In other words, due to a lack of regulations, a disaster happened.

You are not seriously suggesting that the solution to a problem in which a lack of functioning regulations caused a disaster is to do away with those regulations entirely, are you? That is like repairing a leaky roof by burning down the house.

 

[chessnut]

Why do you think it is not a liberty for a black person to be able to enter a market free from racial discrimination? What you mean to say is that you value certain liberties over others. It just so happens that you value the liberty to exclude black people from private property more than the liberty of a black person to engage in trade free from discrimination. I think that value choice is utterly pathetic on your part.

'utterly pathetic on your part' ...no need for personal insults, bro. If it's private property, people have the right to decide who they want on it. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you think otherwise, you're ignoring the property rights/liberties of the owner. What if I had a basketball goal on my driveway and I didn't want anyone except my kids playing on it? Do I not have a say in this matter? What if a ball bounces and breaks a window when I'm not home? Let's have another example...let's say a restaurant owner chooses not to serve black people, he will be frowned upon in the community and will suffer the consequences.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Why do you think it is not a liberty for a black person to be able to enter a market free from racial discrimination? What you mean to say is that you value certain liberties over others. It just so happens that you value the liberty to exclude black people from private property more than the liberty of a black person to engage in trade free from discrimination. I think that value choice is utterly pathetic on your part.

I see where you're coming from, but at the same time though, would you want to do business with a bigot? I know in Japan, for example, there are still places that won't serve whites. I say fuck them, I don't want your service anyway. It just makes them look bad, not me.

Let's have another example...let's say a restaurant owner chooses not to serve black people, he will be frowned upon in the community and will suffer the consequences.

That's the other perspective I'm seeing.

 

[Piecake]

You are not seriously suggesting that the solution to a problem in which a lack of functioning regulations caused a disaster is to do away with those regulations entirely, are you? That is like repairing a leaky roof by burning down the house.

Wait, that isnt how you fix a leaky roof? I still find it absolutely hilarious and depressing that people still favor less/no regulations on our economy, environment, safety, when we have several recent examples where too little regulations completely fucked us over

But but, the market will solve everything!!! Yea, that sure worked well for us in 2008...

 

[KHarvey16]

What if the community likes it that way?

 

[ToxicAdam]

I'm not sure what your point is, other than to reinforce the point I was making. The MMS, operating under an administration that opposed industry regulations, became corrupted and therefore ceased to serve its function. In other words, due to a lack of regulations, a disaster happened.

You are not seriously suggesting that the solution to a problem in which a lack of functioning regulations caused a disaster is to do away with those regulations entirely, are you? That is like repairing a leaky roof by burning down the house.

Due to the numerous colossal failures of regulators over the past 3 decades, it appears this isn't working so well. Maybe they need to add another layer to the onion.

 

[empty vessel]

'utterly pathetic on your part' ...no need for personal insults, bro. If it's private property, people have the right to decide who they want on it. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you think otherwise, you're ignoring the property rights/liberties of the owner.

Yes, indeed. Just like we "ignore the property rights/liberties of the owner" when we have building codes. That's because we value the liberty of market participants to shop safely over the property rights of the business owner to put consumers at risk. Just so we're clear, your position is that the liberty of a business owner to engage in racist discrimination is more important than the liberty of a black person to enter markets free from racial discrimination.

What if I had a basketball goal on my driveway and I didn't want anyone except my kids playing on it? Do I not have a say in this matter? What if a ball bounces and breaks a window when I'm not home?

What are you talking about? We're talking about the Civil Rights Act, which does not restrict a property owner's liberty to exclude people from playing basketball on his private driveway.

Let's have another example...let's say a restaurant owner chooses not to serve black people, he will be frowned upon in the community and will suffer the consequences.

Or, instead of protecting the restaurant owner's liberty to engage in racial discrimination at the expense of the black person's liberty to eat at a restaurant free from discrimination, we will protect the liberty of the black person to eat a restaurant free from discrimination at the expense of the restaurant owner's liberty to engage in racial discrimination. In either scenario, a choice is being made. That you value the liberty to engage in racist discrimination over the liberty to be free from racial discrimination is, once again, utterly pathetic.

 

[chessnut]

What if the community likes it that way?

uhh....ignore the place then? Why would you eat at a place that is hostile to your race? They'd probably shit in your food before they give it to you. My point is that if you own land and pay taxes on that land, you can decide you goes in that land or not.

 

[unomas]

It's hilarious to think Paul of all people would hold back on his views, I mean really? There's no evidence to any of this stuff.

Agreed, and I'll support Ron Paul as opposed to any of the other puppet candidates, hopefully he can beat Bachman and continue to gather momentum.

 

[KHarvey16]

uhh....ignore the place then? Why would you eat at a place that is hostile to your race? They'd probably shit in your food before they give it to you. My point is that if you own land and pay taxes on that land, you can decide you goes in that land or not.

Oh so it's cool if minorities are forced out to make way for the racist policies of the majority. Sounds great.

 

[Mercury Fred]

uhh....ignore the place then? Why would you eat at a place that is hostile to your race? They'd probably shit in your food before they give it to you. My point is that if you own land and pay taxes on that land, you can decide you goes in that land or not.

lol

 

[Mardak]

If my house was generally open to the public for business and my reason for excluding you was your race, then, yes. That's the question, isn't it? The Civil Rights Act did not require owners of private property to let anybody into their home, so why are you talking about it? You are evading the question: Why do you think it is not a liberty for a black person to be able to enter a market free from racial discrimination?

My example of my entering your house whether or not it's open to the public is exactly the point of private property.

I do *not* have the liberty to just walk into your house. Just as a customer, the restaurant is allowed to kick me out of it whenever it wants because that's the restaurant's private property.

We already have the data. It's called the 1950's.

How is that data valid for comparison? In those times, government enforced segregation and promoted racism in public places. Why would children think any differently if what they learn from school is segregation?

So you favor repealing murder laws?

Uh? How is that related? Just because I am for liberties doesn't mean I believe in taking away other people's liberties by killing them. In fact that would be very much against the idea of liberty.

 

[Patriots7]

'utterly pathetic on your part' ...no need for personal insults, bro. If it's private property, people have the right to decide who they want on it. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you think otherwise, you're ignoring the property rights/liberties of the owner. What if I had a basketball goal on my driveway and I didn't want anyone except my kids playing on it? Do I not have a say in this matter? What if a ball bounces and breaks a window when I'm not home? Let's have another example...let's say a restaurant owner chooses not to serve black people, he will be frowned upon in the community and will suffer the consequences.

...you have got to be kidding me.

The restaurant owner that chose to serve black people would have been frowned upon and possibly alienated by his white community in the days before the Civil Rights Act (in the segregated parts of the country). Your basketball hoop analogy falls flat as well.

Jesus. I have to say that just like in the last election, Ron Paul supporters scare me more than any other candidate supporters.

 

[KtSlime]

I see where you're coming from, but at the same time though, would you want to do business with a bigot? I know in Japan, for example, there are still places that won't serve whites. I say fuck them, I don't want your service anyway. It just makes them look bad, not me.



That's the other perspective I'm seeing.

I think ultimately the problem is that the market reacts too slow. Things might get worked out in the end. They might create an organization and standard to keep planes from crashing, and eventually there will be businesses that will sell to blacks, or a business that will pay a mexican a living wage - but how long? How many people need to be turned away first? How many people need to die in accidents before public opinion forces businesses to take notice?

I believe this to be the problem with pretty much all propositions from libertarians.

Uh? How is that related? Just because I am for liberties doesn't mean I believe in taking away other people's liberties by killing them. In fact that would be very much against the idea of liberty.

Just to be clear, you are okay with taking away a person's freedom to kill another person?

Do you really hate liberty that much?

 

[empty vessel]

My example of my entering your house whether or not it's open to the public is exactly the point of private property.

It has exactly nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act. Where property rights give way to other liberties is a matter of social choice. It's not a physical law of nature.

I do *not* have the liberty to just walk into your house.

You would if Congress gave it to you. Luckily, very few people would support protecting an individual's liberty to walk into any private home he wanted over a property owner's liberty to exclude persons from his home.

Just as a customer, the restaurant is allowed to kick me out of it whenever it wants because that's the restaurant's private property.

No, it can't kick you out "whenever it wants," if it wants to kick you out because you are a black. There's a law against it.

How is that data valid for comparison? In those times, government enforced segregation and promoted racism in public places. Why would children think any differently if what they learn from school is segregation?

So why not try it again? What good do you think can possibly be gained by openly allowing racial discrimination in business? Why should we leave racial discrimination to the market when we can just say fuck you don't do it. Our society has correctly concluded that the liberty to be free from racial discrimination is so important that it outweighs even certain liberties to exclude people from property. And, you know what? We're fucking right.

Uh? How is that related? Just because I am for liberties doesn't mean I believe in taking away other people's liberties by killing them. In fact that would be very much against the idea of liberty.

This: "Just because people are forced to do something doesn't make them morally good. In fact it probably makes them angrier and less likely to notice what is morally right." is an argument in favor of repealing all criminal laws. You are arguing that conforming behavior to law does not make the person conforming his behavior good and that it might even make them angrier. By this argument, people are more likely to realize that abstaining from murder is "morally right" (and presumably not engage in it) if we repeal homicide laws.

 

[Wall]

'utterly pathetic on your part' ...no need for personal insults, bro. If it's private property, people have the right to decide who they want on it. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you think otherwise, you're ignoring the property rights/liberties of the owner. What if I had a basketball goal on my driveway and I didn't want anyone except my kids playing on it? Do I not have a say in this matter? What if a ball bounces and breaks a window when I'm not home? Let's have another example...let's say a restaurant owner chooses not to serve black people, he will be frowned upon in the community and will suffer the consequences.

So, in other words, you value property rights over the rights of individuals who are prevented from participating in the economy for some arbitrary reason. You value property rights so much more than the rights of individuals to participate in the economy free of discrimination that you are unwilling to make a distinction between personal property, such as a home, and property as it pertains to a businesses, when that is a commonly made distinction for other purposes , such as for of bankruptcy, taxation, and zoning.

 

[A Human Becoming]

I think ultimately the problem is that the market reacts too slow. Things might get worked out in the end. They might create an organization and standard to keep planes from crashing, and eventually there will be businesses that will sell to blacks, or a business that will pay a mexican a living wage - but how long? How many people need to be turned away first? How many people need to die in accidents before public opinion forces businesses to take notice?

I believe this to be the problem with pretty much all propositions from libertarians.

Which is why I think they are good to have, ultimately. I can just understand the libertarian view point that government should have only prevented racial discrimination in the public sector, not private.

It's too bad ageism is still rampant.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

You know election season is coming when the Paulites show up.

 

[Sinoox]

Agreed, and I'll support Ron Paul as opposed to any of the other puppet candidates, hopefully he can beat Bachman and continue to gather momentum.

Great to hear, he should easily surpass Bachmann out of her home state.

 

[besada]

Why does someone need to die for the market to change? You make it seem like the only way for a plane to fail is catastrophically.

Because, unlike you, I'm actually familiar with the history of regulations in America, and what it was like before we had federal regulatory agencies. Companies produced known unsafe vehicles of all sorts, and hid those dangers rather than deal with them, costing many people their lives.

One doesn't have to guess what a libertarian philosophy looks like in action, one only has to look back at how things were before they existed, which in many cases wasn't that long ago.

You're living in a world of imaginary theory based on the economic principles of a group who intentionally eschew any sort of empirical evidence, while I've actually studied the history of what happens in the absence of federal safety regulations.

I see you're running afoul of history versus lunatic theory downthread regarding civil rights as well. Have fun with that.

You know election season is coming when the Paulites show up.

No shit. As usual with libertarians, the best thing about them is knowing they'll never have any power because they're all so doctrinaire that they're incapable of dealing with the real world. It's why they only thrive on the Internet.

 

[Wall]

Due to the numerous colossal failures of regulators over the past 3 decades, it appears this isn't working so well. Maybe they need to add another layer to the onion.

So you would burn down a house to fix a leaky roof.

Person A: That thing blew up cause the regulators weren't doing anything.
Person B: Maybe we should stop electing people who say regulations are bad so corrupt regulators will stop being hired and appointed.
Person A: Nah, do away with regulations altogether.
Person B: ?????

I sense a history of politics and political thought that is ignored in your reference to "colossal failures of regulators over the past 3 decades".

 

[state-of-the-art]

...you have got to be kidding me.

The restaurant owner that chose to serve black people would have been frowned upon and possibly alienated by his white community in the days before the Civil Rights Act (in the segregated parts of the country). Your basketball hoop analogy falls flat as well.

Jesus. I have to say that just like in the last election, Ron Paul supporters scare me more than any other candidate supporters.

Totally agree with you. I roll my eyes every time I hear libertarians try to say that the communities would have naturally desegregated.

 

[speculawyer]

Stores that choose not to serve a black person solely based on the color of his skin are turning away potential customers. Not just of those that are directly turned away by the store owner but also the customers that don't agree to support the store by purchasing their products.

Those customers turned away will spend their money at stores that don't turn away customers. In the long run, which store do you think will have money to survive?.

Then why didn't racism such disappear for 100+ years? That is a huge pragmatic destruction of your argument. You are probably just too young to understand the way the world really works.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Our society has correctly concluded that the liberty to be free from racial discrimination is so important that it outweighs even certain liberties to exclude people from property. And, you know what? We're fucking right.

Well said. Liberty in times needs to be sacrificed for the greater good. The question is, when does it go too far?

 

[besada]

Due to the numerous colossal failures of regulators over the past 3 decades, it appears this isn't working so well. Maybe they need to add another layer to the onion.

That happens when various government actors spend decades intentionally weakening federal regulators. I don't want to send you off on a tear by naming names, but you already know, since you correctly pegged the date of the decline of the federal regulatory system.

 

[speculawyer]

How is that data valid for comparison? In those times, government enforced segregation and promoted racism in public places. Why would children think any differently if what they learn from school is segregation?

You really need to hit the books and learn something. Brown v. Board was 1954. A full ten years passed and things were still shit. That is why they had to pass additional legislation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

You think you understand things but you don't. You only know today's world. Things were very very different and it took brave people and legislation to change things.

 

[Mardak]

No, it can't kick you out "whenever it wants," if it wants to kick you out because you are a black. There's a law against it.

Right, and because of private property/tresspassing laws, they can kick me out for blinking too many times -- distracting other customers. Not combing my hair to maintain the appearance of the restaurant. No shoes no service.

So why not try it again? What good do you think can possibly be gained by openly allowing racial discrimination in business?

Who is pushing to try that again?

And do you really believe people will become racist just because there are no laws preventing it?

Why should we leave racial discrimination to the market when we can just say fuck you don't do it.

Because it allows for other laws that say "don't do marijuana". "Don't eat junk food." Don't do this. Don't do that. You're only allowed to do this.

Our society has correctly concluded that the liberty to be free from racial discrimination

Yes. Society has changed for the better because people are no longer forced to segregate.

people are more likely to realize that abstaining from murder is "morally right" (and presumably not engage in it) if we repeal homicide laws.

Same thing here. Who is pushing to get rid of homicide laws? And just because there aren't laws preventing taking another person's life means everyone will go out and kill their neighbors? Society is nowhere close to allowing that, and I don't see how society would even move in that direction.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Paultards gonna tard.

 

[unomas]

Great to hear, he should easily surpass Bachmann out of her home state.

I love how people sling insults at those who support Ron Paul because of their own insecurities. Can't respond like a normal well thought person? Sling insults to make yourself feel superior. Brilliant! It speaks quite a bit for all of what's wrong in this country and the general negative attitude of it.