Can any member of the rabid right-libertarian front justify this statement?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by flaja, Dec 7, 2006.

  1. flaja
    Offline

    flaja Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    363
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    American is worse off because of desegregation and the (racial) civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
     
  2. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    I wouldn't say it was because of desegregation, but rather because of its execution. In some ways, it went too fast. In others, too slow. For example, blacks, for long periods of time, had to fight off police dogs and fire hoses just to be allowed to hold public meetings or ride in the front of the bus. Politicians, mostly in the South, looked the other way to get the votes of the racist white majority. On the other hand, school segregation was way too forced and awkward. If it had started in kindergarten, rather than being universally enforced throughout, students could likely have grown accustomed to it rather than coming to school one year to find that they had to be in the same classroom as 'darkies.' It was a societal change that was handled more with votes in mind than what was actually good for the people involved, and the subsequent race-baiting and gunpoint diversity still cripples our society today, as people are forced to go well out of their way to make sure that schools, workplaces, and everything else is a racial cross-section of society at large.

    Once again, it's not about the idea, it's about the execution.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    Why would it need to be justified? What is the relevance?

    Here, I can do it to. Would flaja justify this statement? Illegal Aliens have more rights than US citizens within our borders?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. flaja
    Offline

    flaja Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    363
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    Illegals don't have a right to be here, but once here they do have the same due process legal rights as anyone else. The Constitution does not limit due process rights to U.S. citizens- something I have covered in another thread.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Which right trumps the other? Since they don't have a right to be here shouldn't they file thier due process papers from another country ?
    We're talking about illegally usurped rights here.
     
  6. flaja
    Offline

    flaja Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    363
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    If we catch an illegal, he is entitled to a hearing so we can prove his illegal status. Otherwise we risk deporting someone who is a citizen. In the same vein, we cannot automatically declare someone to be a murderer, bank robber, car thief or anything else just because they are an illegal alien.
     
  7. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +491
    Actually, in some ways it may be better off. I read something by Thomas Sowell once that argued that discrimination based on race and sex would have eventually ended because of economic reasons.

    The reason was that the demand for labor over the past several decades has exceeded the supply of white males between the ages of 18 and 65. Therefore, women and minorities were able to enter the workplace. My recollection was that women entered the 1970s to make ends meet rather than to find careers or make a political statement. So, this may be proof that Thomas Sowell was right.

    It makes sense. Just think of the law of supply and demand. If the demand for labor is high, and you limit the supply of labor because of race or sex, you automatically increase the price (because you've limited the supply). On the other hand, if you hire any qualified person regardless of race or sex, you keep the cost of labor down.

    The same argument can be used to argue against affirmative action and other quota based systems that attempt to rectify past discrimination. The labor market is not sensitive to past racial or sex based discrimination. If you discriminate in favor of women or minorities, you will increase the cost of labor (by the same reasons I gave before).
     
  8. flaja
    Offline

    flaja Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    363
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    How much of this economic activity is due to the fact that minorities are no longer restricted to menial jobs and thus have more purchasing power? How much is due to the fact mothers routinely work outside of the home so their children can have things like $600 video games rather than working to put food on the table?

    Without the civil rights movement, would it have been possible for minorities and women to enter the workforce in such large numbers?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    It's really impossible to know because we have no way of knowing how things would have been if we would have let society operate without government interference. The messed with the prime directive, Captain.
     
  10. flaja
    Offline

    flaja Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    363
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    So its OK to discriminate against people and lynch people just as long as the government doesn’t get involved?
     

Share This Page