Misrepresenting Libertarianism

[BasicGreatGuy]

Maybe if libertarians were not so obviously arrogant they'd have some better luck.

Just a thought.

One size does not fit all. I have read through the thread, and you are woefully ignorant about freedom and liberty as espoused in the Constitution, not to mention having an informed clue about what a lot of Libertarians believe. Trying to paint Libertarians (as a whole) as racist is absurd.

Contrary to your misguided belief, a person demanding to enter any private business at will is not a civil right much less a constitutional right.

 

[2Parties]

Libertarians supporting wars, social security, and numerous other laws and social programs does more harm than any mainstream media report will ever do...

 

[Ravi]

Maybe if libertarians were not so obviously arrogant they'd have some better luck.

Just a thought.

One size does not fit all. I have read through the thread, and you are woefully ignorant about freedom and liberty as espoused in the Constitution, not to mention having an informed clue about what a lot of Libertarians believe. Trying to paint Libertarians (as a whole) as racist is absurd.

Contrary to your misguided belief, a person demanding to enter any private business at will is not a civil right much less a constitutional right.

It is a civil right if the business is open to the public.

 

[sweetie]

...although i have some affection for honest 'libertarianism,' i can't stand the miserable, phony, "Libertarian Party Inc."

..it appears THE LP INC. has been 'taken over' by some awful, disgruntled, stoooooopid fuck conservative republicans..

..embarrassingly and sickeningly--in the 2008 pres. election cycle--a bunch of miserable goddamned republicrat fools gathered in ?denver and nominated the stinking republican congressman, cia operative, etceterot, boob barf.. (in my experience, the support for the stinking republican bobo barf came from the same republicrat dummies who think stinking barry goldwater, stinking ronald rayguns, stinking glenn beck, etc. stinking republicans galore, were/are 'libertarians'...

..i just got another request in the mail for $$ from THE LP INC...LOL!...WHAT HONEST LIBERTARIAN IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD $UPPORT A BUNCH OF FUCKING DISGRUNTLED REPUBLICAN FOOLS WHOSE TITULAR HEADS/LEADING CANDIDATES ARE BOOB BARF AND THE FOAMING WARMONGER AND ZIONIST ASSKISSER, WAYNE ROT?!..

..the rest of you, have a good day!..

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Libertarians supporting wars, social security, and numerous other laws and social programs does more harm than any mainstream media report will ever do...

What? libertarians dont support any of that stuff.

 

[manifold]

Maybe if libertarians were not so obviously arrogant they'd have some better luck.

Just a thought.

One size does not fit all. I have read through the thread, and you are woefully ignorant about freedom and liberty as espoused in the Constitution, not to mention having an informed clue about what a lot of Libertarians believe. Trying to paint Libertarians (as a whole) as racist is absurd.

Contrary to your misguided belief, a person demanding to enter any private business at will is not a civil right much less a constitutional right.

It is a civil right if the business is open to the public.

Way to miss the point Ravs.

It's only a "civil" right because it's been legislated to be. I believe what people are saying is that the legislation itself runs contrary to the principles in the Constitution.

Feel free to disagree, but at least understand what you're arguing against.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

One size does not fit all. I have read through the thread, and you are woefully ignorant about freedom and liberty as espoused in the Constitution, not to mention having an informed clue about what a lot of Libertarians believe. Trying to paint Libertarians (as a whole) as racist is absurd.

Contrary to your misguided belief, a person demanding to enter any private business at will is not a civil right much less a constitutional right.

It is a civil right if the business is open to the public.

Way to miss the point Ravs.

It's only a "civil" right because it's been legislated to be. I believe what people are saying is that the legislation itself runs contrary to the principles in the Constitution.

Feel free to disagree, but at least understand what you're arguing against.

Yeah i think thats what was being argued too mainfold.

Either way the whole thing has been removed from its context and turned into something it wasn't meant as when first stated.

 

[manifold]

It is a civil right if the business is open to the public.

Way to miss the point Ravs.

It's only a "civil" right because it's been legislated to be. I believe what people are saying is that the legislation itself runs contrary to the principles in the Constitution.

Feel free to disagree, but at least understand what you're arguing against.

Yeah i think thats what was being argued too mainfold.

Either way the whole thing has been removed from its context and turned into something it wasn't meant as when first stated.

The bottom line is that some people value equality more than they value liberty. In some cases I too think it's a prudent trade-off. But it's the unwillingness of some to acknowledge that the CRA indeed trades in liberty for equality that I find intellectually objectionable.

 

[Old Rocks]

Absurd questions like who builds, maintains, and pays for the roads and whether the systematic oppression of an entire race is acceptable?

Why don't you just come out and admit what you really think? Why do you libertardians only admit what you really think on accident?

You tell him, Nikolai.

Well obviously ol' Rent-a- Boy likes the free market

 

[Old Rocks]

...although i have some affection for honest 'libertarianism,' i can't stand the miserable, phony, "Libertarian Party Inc."

..it appears THE LP INC. has been 'taken over' by some awful, disgruntled, stoooooopid fuck conservative republicans..

..embarrassingly and sickeningly--in the 2008 pres. election cycle--a bunch of miserable goddamned republicrat fools gathered in ?denver and nominated the stinking republican congressman, cia operative, etceterot, boob barf.. (in my experience, the support for the stinking republican bobo barf came from the same republicrat dummies who think stinking barry goldwater, stinking ronald rayguns, stinking glenn beck, etc. stinking republicans galore, were/are 'libertarians'...

..i just got another request in the mail for $$ from THE LP INC...LOL!...WHAT HONEST LIBERTARIAN IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD $UPPORT A BUNCH OF FUCKING DISGRUNTLED REPUBLICAN FOOLS WHOSE TITULAR HEADS/LEADING CANDIDATES ARE BOOB BARF AND THE FOAMING WARMONGER AND ZIONIST ASSKISSER, WAYNE ROT?!..

..the rest of you, have a good day!..

You were unhappy with their choice, I take it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Way to miss the point Ravs.

It's only a "civil" right because it's been legislated to be. I believe what people are saying is that the legislation itself runs contrary to the principles in the Constitution.

Feel free to disagree, but at least understand what you're arguing against.

Yeah i think thats what was being argued too mainfold.

Either way the whole thing has been removed from its context and turned into something it wasn't meant as when first stated.

The bottom line is that some people value equality more than they value liberty. In some cases I too think it's a prudent trade-off. But it's the unwillingness of some to acknowledge that the CRA indeed trades in liberty for equality that I find intellectually objectionable.

Your too intelligent for forums manifold.

 

[Bfgrn]

Way to miss the point Ravs.

It's only a "civil" right because it's been legislated to be. I believe what people are saying is that the legislation itself runs contrary to the principles in the Constitution.

Feel free to disagree, but at least understand what you're arguing against.

Yeah i think thats what was being argued too mainfold.

Either way the whole thing has been removed from its context and turned into something it wasn't meant as when first stated.

The bottom line is that some people value equality more than they value liberty. In some cases I too think it's a prudent trade-off. But it's the unwillingness of some to acknowledge that the CRA indeed trades in liberty for equality that I find intellectually objectionable.

Any self-centered white man would...

The Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1963

Good evening my fellow citizens:

This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro.

That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way.

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Viet-Nam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops.

It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal.

It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case.

The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.

This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.

The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.

We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.

Whole speech...Radio and Television Report to the American People on Civil Rights - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

President John F. Kennedy
The White House
June 11, 1963

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS4Qw4lIckg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS4Qw4lIckg[/ame]

 

[manifold]

Thanks for validating my point Bfgrn.

Even if it was unintentional and you remain oblivious to it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanks for validating my point Bfgrn.

Even if it was unintentional and you remain oblivious to it.

Hey pea brain, you are validating that your blind narcissism is terminal. Why don't you take a few minutes and listen to what President Kennedy said about civil rights?

What you are oblivious to, is that you can only see how something effects YOU.

This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place?

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[manifold]

Thanks for validating my point Bfgrn.

Even if it was unintentional and you remain oblivious to it.

Hey pea brain, you are validating that your blind narcissism is terminal. Why don't you take a few minutes and listen to what President Kennedy said about civil rights?

What you are oblivious to, is that you can only see how something effects YOU.

This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place?

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

You still miss the point.

But it bothers me not. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[rikules]

Looks like we've had a whoooole lotta that there "misrepresentin" thing going on around these here parts, too.

The editors of the New York Times misrepresent libertarianism by way of Rand Paul and his statements about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying:

"As a longtime libertarian, he espouses the view that personal freedom should supersede all government intervention. Neighborhood associations should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, he has written, and private businesses ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they wish. Under this philosophy, the punishment for a lunch counter that refuses to seat black customers would be public shunning, not a court order.

It is a theory of liberty with roots in America’s creation, but the succeeding centuries have shown how ineffective it was in promoting a civil society. The freedom of a few people to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups of others.

It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market. It was government that rescued the economy from the Depression and promoted safety and equality in the workplace."

Let’s start with the most obvious canard, which is the proposition that Jim Crow had anything to do with free markets. They were called “Jim Crow Laws“, not “Jim Crow Markets”, the obvious reason for which is that separate accommodations were mandated by state governments, not organically grown in some mythical garden of free association rights. Indeed, the entire reason for the corrupt deal behind the presidential election of 1876 was to throw the South’s support behind a president who would end Reconstruction.

It was government–in this case, the state governments in the South–that imposed Jim Crow, and government that forced private companies to impose the desired restrictions on blacks. If government intervention was required to [abolish] Jim Crow, that was only because governments had imposed it in the first place....

Misrepresenting Libertarianism | Questions and Observations

according to hate radio DJ neil boortz libertarians have the same beliefs as right wing hate filled conservative christians...

now THAT is a gross misrepresentation

 

[boedicca]

Maybe if libertarians were not so obviously arrogant they'd have some better luck.

Just a thought.

One size does not fit all. I have read through the thread, and you are woefully ignorant about freedom and liberty as espoused in the Constitution, not to mention having an informed clue about what a lot of Libertarians believe. Trying to paint Libertarians (as a whole) as racist is absurd.

Contrary to your misguided belief, a person demanding to enter any private business at will is not a civil right much less a constitutional right.

It is a civil right if the business is open to the public.

B'loney. The business is private property into which the owner allows customers to enter based upon certain conditions (i.e., No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service). It is not a Commons.

 

[boedicca]

Thanks for validating my point Bfgrn.

Even if it was unintentional and you remain oblivious to it.

Hey pea brain, you are validating that your blind narcissism is terminal. Why don't you take a few minutes and listen to what President Kennedy said about civil rights?

What you are oblivious to, is that you can only see how something effects YOU.

This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place?

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

And how do the rights of the business owner fit into this?

 

[manifold]

Fantasyland simpletons <names withheld to protect the retarded> don't seem to understand that arguing whether the CRA was justified is a different argument from whether it was technically unconstitutional, and both are different from the fact that it absolutely restricted liberty that existed beforehand. And there is no mutual exclusivity either. A strong case can be made that it's all three.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanks for validating my point Bfgrn.

Even if it was unintentional and you remain oblivious to it.

Hey pea brain, you are validating that your blind narcissism is terminal. Why don't you take a few minutes and listen to what President Kennedy said about civil rights?

What you are oblivious to, is that you can only see how something effects YOU.

This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place?

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

You still miss the point.

But it bothers me not. Thanks for the laugh.

I completely get your 'point' ...I just wish there were something that called for laughter. Liberty is defined as freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

I 'get' that.

But the antonyms of liberty are: arrest, imprisonment, incarceration, restraint.

The right continues there '1894' attack on language by hijacking words they can use as a weapon against morality and sanity.

You scurrilous right wing creatures don't even listen to the founders of conservatism.

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke