Misrepresenting Libertarianism

[Ravi]

Great comment from the link in the OP:

When criminals have the tacit approval of the police (aka, the state) it would have been very difficult for the free market to sort it out. The reason is that the state was deliberately looking the other way instead of enforcing the laws. This is not a free market problem. This a problem of evil people running the show.
The classical liberal view of why men form governments is to protect the unalienable rights of the citizens. In the case of Jim Crow laws the state was actively denying the rights of the citizenry. To blame libertarians for this is not just a misrepresentation, it is an outright lie. The NY Times should be ashamed to have run such a dishonest article.

The writers at the NYTs screwed up again. That, however, won't stop the rabid wackos from supporting their lies.

To say that anyone blamed libertarians for this is not just a misrepresentation, it is an outright lie.

Suck on it.

 

[Oddball]

The premise of the OP was faulty, for two reasons.

1. The only reason Jim Crow Laws were abolished was by exercising Federal power to abolish local laws.
Federal power trumping states rights is surely not something libertarians would support.

Nor would they support state laws which usurp the natural rights of the individual, no matter their ethnicity...The point of the piece in the OP is that the federal "cure" ended up being every bit as bad as the state/local disease.

2. The Civil Rights act was clearly federal power acting again in an attempt to control a problem social issue, in this case racism.
This is an example of when pure Libertarianism just does not work in promoting good governance.

Flaw there being that libertarian principles weren't being used at any level, so the premise that they wouldn't work is non sequitur.

 

[boedicca]

At least you are coming out from the closet...gosh, GoLLLLYYY...

You need to get your bigoted stereotypes straightened out.

Jethro wasn't known for saying GoLLLLYYYY...that was Gomer Pyle's phrase.

'Zactly.

Jethro was known for his sixth grade edgy-cation.

Maybe he can entertain us all with some fancy cypherin'.

I ainna holin mah breath, but all be awaitin by the ceeement pool meanswilestimes.

 

[Ravi]

The premise of the OP was faulty, for two reasons.

1. The only reason Jim Crow Laws were abolished was by exercising Federal power to abolish local laws.
Federal power trumping states rights is surely not something libertarians would support.

and

2. The Civil Rights act was clearly federal power acting again in an attempt to control a problem social issue, in this case racism.
This is an example of when pure Libertarianism just does not work in promoting good governance.

While some media outlets are insinuating that this makes Rand Paul a "racist" (which it does not), the New York Times made no such inference, but simply pointed out the problem with Paul's rather extremist stance.

In fact, there doesn't seem to be anything in the article from the OP that "misrepresents" anything at all.

Oh, there's definitely a bias in the choice of descriptive language used, and perhaps a very small amount of hyperbolization in regards to Paul's stance, but that's about it as far as I can see.

Yep. I think libertarians are a little uber-sensitive these days.

 

[Bfgrn]

At least you are coming out from the closet...gosh, GoLLLLYYY...

You need to get your bigoted stereotypes straightened out.

Jethro wasn't known for saying GoLLLLYYYY...that was Gomer Pyle's phrase.

Well, you must be a double naught spy...

DUD is unable to answer, he fell in the cement pond and Elly May's 'critters' attacked him...

 

[Ravi]

The premise of the OP was faulty, for two reasons.

1. The only reason Jim Crow Laws were abolished was by exercising Federal power to abolish local laws.
Federal power trumping states rights is surely not something libertarians would support.

Federal power was used to protect individual rights against state sponsored suppression of them, something almost every libertarian supports.

2. The Civil Rights act was clearly federal power acting again in an attempt to control a problem social issue, in this case racism. This is an example of when pure Libertarianism just does not work in promoting good governance.

This just indicates a lack of understanding of what libertarianism actually means. Libertarians support individual rights and are against systematic suppression of them. Most of the people supported the CRA when it was passed, which means you actually think libertarians would automatically oppose the right for the majority of people to self determine their choices. Does that really sound like libertarianism to you?

While some media outlets are insinuating that this makes Rand Paul a "racist" (which it does not), the New York Times made no such inference, but simply pointed out the problem with Paul's rather extremist stance.

In fact, there doesn't seem to be anything in the article from the OP that "misrepresents" anything at all.

Oh, there's definitely a bias in the choice of descriptive language used, and perhaps a very small amount of hyperbolization in regards to Paul's stance, but that's about it as far as I can see.

If the article supported your view of libertarianism it did.

I find libertarian views rather contradictory.

For instance,

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

Platform | Libertarian Party

Those two statements I've bolded are opposed to each other.

 

[Oddball]

At least you are coming out from the closet...gosh, GoLLLLYYY...

You need to get your bigoted stereotypes straightened out.

Jethro wasn't known for saying GoLLLLYYYY...that was Gomer Pyle's phrase.

Well, you must be a double naught spy...

DUD is unable to answer, he fell in the cement pond and Elly May's 'critters' attacked him...

Go ahead, Jethro....Do some timeses first and then some gazintas later on.

Dazzle us all with that sixth grade genius and then we'll have Granny whip ya up a pot of vittles!

 

[syrenn]

Can you show me anyone who claims the state has a right to segregate?

We live in a world where segregation is against the law. But you know what, I find that most people self segregate all by themselves.

 

[Big Fitz]

A lightbulb burns out in the room with a Conservative, a Career Politician and a Socialist.

The Socialist curses the dark and demands an investigation on why the lightbulb failed, riots and loots the local community, blames the Conservative for it's failure before the investigation starts, demands the Career Politician tax the Conservative more because he's rich and is anti-lightbulb for the poor and declares that it is obvious that lightbulbs are dangerous and we should stop using them immediately for they will fail again and suggests soy candles

The Conservative says he'll fix it himself inspite of the Socialist now protesting the elitism of the Conservative in trying to fix the problem without government oversight and regulation.

The Career Politician polls the room, sees a strong degree of outrage about the incident, sees the Conservative about to solve the problem with him and declares a moratorium on all lightbulb changing. A blue ribbon panel of the Career Politician's friends is assembled to decide how to do it where they can get the most votes and money to maintain power. In the end, they pass a budget for changing the lightbulb that is a 50% increase over what the Conservative is going to do it for, find a preferred contractor who uses socialist run union labor who then runs into cost overruns and then decides a bailout is needed from the Conservative to complete the job which then costs 4 times as much. Then a new regulatory and oversight agency is appointed to monitor the new lightbulb and be in charge of it's replacement. This will be done in the Career Politician's homestate of course, which is staffed by union members and vote for the career politician.

The socialist protests the lightbulb saying it discriminates against candles.

This is how we currently change light bulbs.

What's about to happen is the Conservative is about to leave the room and leave Socialist and Career Politician to deal with this problem alone next time.

 

[Vast LWC]

The premise of the OP was faulty, for two reasons.

1. The only reason Jim Crow Laws were abolished was by exercising Federal power to abolish local laws.
Federal power trumping states rights is surely not something libertarians would support.

Nor would they support state laws which usurp the natural rights of the individual, no matter their ethnicity...The point of the piece in the OP is that the federal "cure" ended up being every bit as bad as the state/local disease.

2. The Civil Rights act was clearly federal power acting again in an attempt to control a problem social issue, in this case racism.
This is an example of when pure Libertarianism just does not work in promoting good governance.

Flaw there being that libertarian principles weren't being used at any level, so the premise that they wouldn't work is non sequitur.

Honestly, as far as philosophies go, Libertarianism is one that really doesn't offend me very much.

I was just pointing out that complete devotion to an extreme form of any philosophy will cause problems.

Sometimes it pays to be pragmatic, as opposed to an idealogue.

 

[Vast LWC]

A lightbulb burns out in the room with a Conservative, a Career Politician and a Socialist.

The Socialist curses the dark and demands an investigation on why the lightbulb failed, riots and loots the local community, blames the Conservative for it's failure before the investigation starts, demands the Career Politician tax the Conservative more because he's rich and is anti-lightbulb for the poor and declares that it is obvious that lightbulbs are dangerous and we should stop using them immediately for they will fail again and suggests soy candles

The Conservative says he'll fix it himself inspite of the Socialist now protesting the elitism of the Conservative in trying to fix the problem without government oversight and regulation.

The Career Politician polls the room, sees a strong degree of outrage about the incident, sees the Conservative about to solve the problem with him and declares a moratorium on all lightbulb changing. A blue ribbon panel of the Career Politician's friends is assembled to decide how to do it where they can get the most votes and money to maintain power. In the end, they pass a budget for changing the lightbulb that is a 50% increase over what the Conservative is going to do it for, find a preferred contractor who uses socialist run union labor who then runs into cost overruns and then decides a bailout is needed from the Conservative to complete the job which then costs 4 times as much. Then a new regulatory and oversight agency is appointed to monitor the new lightbulb and be in charge of it's replacement. This will be done in the Career Politician's homestate of course, which is staffed by union members and vote for the career politician.

The socialist protests the lightbulb saying it discriminates against candles.

This is how we currently change light bulbs.

What's about to happen is the Conservative is about to leave the room and leave Socialist and Career Politician to deal with this problem alone next time.

That would be funny, except you forgot to mention 2 things:

1. The conservative refused to pay for any light bulb that might benefit someone else, so there wasn't enough money in the budget to purchase a replacement.

and

2. When the Socialist and the Career politician borrowed some money from the neighbor to pay for the conservative's share of the light-bulb, the conservative promptly complained about the fact that he now was in debt just to help a couple of "welfare cases" ...

...and then sat back and refused to screw in said light-bulb due to the fact that the debt was a socialist plot to take over the house, and he would have no part of it...

...Finally, the socialist screwed in the light bulb "for the good of the community".



So, what's really "about to happen" is: The Conservatives aren't going to leave the room at all, their just going to complain about the taxes they have to pay, and then blame everyone else for the debt, while enjoying all the benefits.

 

[Big Fitz]

1. The conservative refused to pay for any light bulb that might benefit someone else, so there wasn't enough money in the budget to purchase a replacement.

Funny... it's usually the rich capitalist conservative that has jobs that need filling. Can't get work done without the lightbulb in. Mutual benefit isn't frowned upon. It just must be voluntary.

2. When the Socialist and the Career politician borrowed some money from the neighbor to pay for the conservative's share of the light-bulb, the conservative promptly complained about the fact that he now was in debt just to help a couple of "welfare cases" ...

True, the socialist would try to go to other houses to find other conservatives to pay for the lightbulb that benefits only their room, and then threaten strong arm tactics and legislation when they were rebuffed and told to pony up their own dough. The conservative in the house would do what he has always done... pay for the socialist's share as well as the politician's cut as well.

 

[Oddball]

The premise of the OP was faulty, for two reasons.

1. The only reason Jim Crow Laws were abolished was by exercising Federal power to abolish local laws.
Federal power trumping states rights is surely not something libertarians would support.

Nor would they support state laws which usurp the natural rights of the individual, no matter their ethnicity...The point of the piece in the OP is that the federal "cure" ended up being every bit as bad as the state/local disease.

2. The Civil Rights act was clearly federal power acting again in an attempt to control a problem social issue, in this case racism.
This is an example of when pure Libertarianism just does not work in promoting good governance.

Flaw there being that libertarian principles weren't being used at any level, so the premise that they wouldn't work is non sequitur.

Honestly, as far as philosophies go, Libertarianism is one that really doesn't offend me very much.

I was just pointing out that complete devotion to an extreme form of any philosophy will cause problems.

Sometimes it pays to be pragmatic, as opposed to an idealogue.

We've had nearly 100 years of progressive/Fabian "pragmatism" and it's not working out so hot.

At this point, just about any reversal of course --as opposed to "reformist" turd polishing-- would be beneficial.

 

[Big Fitz]

So, what's really "about to happen" is: The Conservatives aren't going to leave the room at all, their just going to complain about the taxes they have to pay, and then blame everyone else for the debt, while enjoying all the benefits.

Suggest you reconsider your status quo of placid torpor.

People who make this world work are getting fed up far faster than you believe.

 

[Big Fitz]

Nor would they support state laws which usurp the natural rights of the individual, no matter their ethnicity...The point of the piece in the OP is that the federal "cure" ended up being every bit as bad as the state/local disease.




Flaw there being that libertarian principles weren't being used at any level, so the premise that they wouldn't work is non sequitur.

Honestly, as far as philosophies go, Libertarianism is one that really doesn't offend me very much.

I was just pointing out that complete devotion to an extreme form of any philosophy will cause problems.

Sometimes it pays to be pragmatic, as opposed to an idealogue.

We've had nearly 100 years of progressive/Fabian "pragmatism" and it's not working out so hot.

At this point, just about any reversal of course --as opposed to "reformist" turd polishing-- would be beneficial.

We keep hearing from the progressives that the time to rebuild this nation is at hand. In this they're right.

But not the way they think. It is time to bulldoze the rickety side structures and abominations of governmental architecture and institutional social ills and get back down to the good foundation this nation is founded on. This time, adding a few minor impediments to thwart the likes of fabian socialist/progressives and codify the customs that liberals have no interest in following. We've learned one thing quite well over the last 2 centuries:

You cannot trust evil men to abide by good sense and ethics. You must force them by threat of law and punishment to do what is right, lest they corrupt the very system designed to keep us safe from people like them.

 

[xsited1]

Fascinating rebuttal. You clearly pwned the duder on this one.

His C&P is a non sequitur.

Not to mention that Rand Paul, and most libertarians, are probably supportive of a state's right to enact Jim Crow laws.

"Probably"??

Care to back that up with anything other than your clearly bigoted surmise?

"Probably supportive of a State's right to enact Jim Crow laws...."

I see the USMB bigot rears her ugly head. Zero redeeming qualities...

 

[xsited1]

Great comment from the link in the OP:

When criminals have the tacit approval of the police (aka, the state) it would have been very difficult for the free market to sort it out. The reason is that the state was deliberately looking the other way instead of enforcing the laws. This is not a free market problem. This a problem of evil people running the show.
The classical liberal view of why men form governments is to protect the unalienable rights of the citizens. In the case of Jim Crow laws the state was actively denying the rights of the citizenry. To blame libertarians for this is not just a misrepresentation, it is an outright lie. The NY Times should be ashamed to have run such a dishonest article.

The writers at the NYTs screwed up again. That, however, won't stop the rabid wackos from supporting their lies.

To say that anyone blamed libertarians for this is not just a misrepresentation, it is an outright lie.

Suck on it.

To say you can actually read and understand anything is an outright lie. Now go cry to Obama. Maybe he'll give you some cheese.

 

[ihopehefails]

Every time I read something that a 'liberal' writes it always sounds something along the line s of "freedom is bad and control is good".

The writer of the NYT story forgets that is is individual freedom that we are working on. It sucks to have other people be denied something such as being served food but what about the individual serving the food? Aren't we forcing that person to labor against their wish and wouldn't that be some form of slavery?

 

[Bern80]

His C&P is a non sequitur.

Not to mention that Rand Paul, and most libertarians, are probably supportive of a state's right to enact Jim Crow laws.

Most libertarians actually support the federal governments authority to enforce the constitution, which specifically prohibits states from making Jim Crow laws. If the federal government had done its job there would have been no Jim Crow laws, and no one would be able to now claim that most libertarians supported them. I used to wonder why both parties are unable to man up and admit when they are wrong, now I know it is becasue they simply are never wrong.

Does that mean Rand Paul is actually not a libertarian? If so, how could he object to the CRA if it did away with Jim Crow laws?

As in the Carter CRA? Are you serious? Maybe he's against for a more logical reason like it played a big part in our recent economic collapse.

 

[Vast LWC]

So, what's really "about to happen" is: The Conservatives aren't going to leave the room at all, their just going to complain about the taxes they have to pay, and then blame everyone else for the debt, while enjoying all the benefits.

Suggest you reconsider your status quo of placid torpor.

People who make this world work are getting fed up far faster than you believe.

Ahh, there's the good ol' "Right-wingers are the bread earners" line again.

Tell me, since high-population areas make the most money, get the least federal funding, and pay the most taxes, per capita...

...and since high population areas are much more likely to be progressive in their political bent than low-population areas...

How exactly do you think the farce of "Conservatives pay taxes and Liberals spend the money" will fly in this, or any, conversation?

That particular wool, that you folks have been putting in front of people's eyes for some time now, has started to wear very thin.