Misrepresenting Libertarianism

[JBeukema]

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.

Don't just about all civil rights laws trade the liberty of they who would discriminate for equality and the welfare of those discriminated against?

 

[manifold]

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.

Don't just about all civil rights laws trade the liberty of they who would discriminate for equality and the welfare of those discriminated against?

Yes.

But watch out, now Bfgrn is going to accuse you of being scurrilous right wing creature.

 

[JBeukema]

So, as I said, the question now becomes whether this law, necessary and just at the time of its passing, is still needed and should continue to serve as precedent. I think it's no longer needed in most places and I think we should restore the shopkeeper's liberties to serve whom they wish and create the atmosphere they wish [be it an all-women's gym or a cafe full of Mariachi music and pictures of Zapata or a pub for skinhead bikers or whatever]. The point of the act was the break the systemin the Soth, and I think it's fair to say that's been achieved as much as can be done with such laws.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Don't just about all civil rights laws trade the liberty of they who would discriminate for equality and the welfare of those discriminated against?

Yes.

But watch out, now Bfgrn is going to accuse you of being scurrilous right wing creature.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
Douglas Adams

BTW, doesn't criminal law trade the liberty of they who would commit a crime? Doesn't traffic law trade the liberty of they who would speed and blow through stop signs?

Now children, finish your milk and cookies and get out your blankets, it's nap time...

 

[manifold]

Don't just about all civil rights laws trade the liberty of they who would discriminate for equality and the welfare of those discriminated against?

Yes.

But watch out, now Bfgrn is going to accuse you of being scurrilous right wing creature.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
Douglas Adams

BTW, doesn't criminal law trade the liberty of they who would commit a crime? Doesn't traffic law trade the liberty of they who would speed and blow through stop signs?

Now children, finish your milk and cookies and get out your blankets, it's nap time...

So now you've been reduced to name calling and non-sequiturs.

I once actually thought you added some value here. Clearly I was mistaken.


Carry on.

 

[manifold]

So, as I said, the question now becomes whether this law, necessary and just at the time of its passing, is still needed and should continue to serve as precedent. I think it's no longer needed in most places and I think we should restore the shopkeeper's liberties to serve whom they wish and create the atmosphere they wish [be it an all-women's gym or a cafe full of Mariachi music and pictures of Zapata or a pub for skinhead bikers or whatever]. The point of the act was the break the systemin the Soth, and I think it's fair to say that's been achieved as much as can be done with such laws.

I agree. But getting laws taken off the books is probably ten times more difficult than getting them added in the first place.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No it is not. It is only a civil right if the business provides public accommodation.

(7) Public accommodation The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

United States Code: Title 42,12181. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[2Parties]

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.

Some that label themselves as libertarians do support a lot of that stuff. Also, there is even a group in the Libertarian Party that supports wars...

You don't need the mainstream media to misrepresent libertarianism, you just need to talk to half of self-labeled libertarians...

 

[Ravi]

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.

Whether it was justified or not is beside the point.

The DOI and the Constitution clearly state that all "men" are created equal and we all enjoy all the freedoms. Therefore, a business that is open to serve the public cannot treat the public with different degrees of equality.

 

[Ravi]

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.

No it is not. It is only a civil right if the business provides public accommodation.

(7) Public accommodation The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

United States Code: Title 42,12181. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

I think that pretty much covers places that are open to the public. Thanks for proving my point.

Though I'm not so sure lawyer and accountant should be included in that list.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

No it is not. It is only a civil right if the business provides public accommodation.

(7) Public accommodation The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

United States Code: Title 42,12181. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

I think that pretty much covers places that are open to the public. Thanks for proving my point.

Though I'm not so sure lawyer and accountant should be included in that list.

The interesting thing is that even you agree that some businesses can discriminate, like Curves, yet they are on this list as not being able to do so.

 

[Ravi]

I find it interesting that you gave me the written law on non-discrimination of people with disabilities. Does that mean you believe skin color is a disability?



I withdraw my comment on lawyers and accountants that I made above in regards to this particular law.

 

[MIPS]

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

Of course the progressives misrepresent libertarianism, that's all they do, namely lie, misconstrue, and dehumanize about anyone that doesn't buy into their dystopian fantasies. They're just upset that libertarianism is on the ascendancy and the true, repugnant nature of their ideology driven world view has been unmasked to the general public by the "Buck-Doesn't-Stop-Here-In-Chief" and his nasty band of statist apparatchiks. These people just cannot handle honest debate and people with actual principles.

Keep on keepin' on Dude, you're doing a public service...... now back to working on getting Sharron Angle nominated in NV so she can beat the crap outta Harry "I never met corruption I didn't like" Reid and I think I'll drop another bundle of bucks in Rand's coffers while I'm at it...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I find it interesting that you gave me the written law on non-discrimination of people with disabilities. Does that mean you believe skin color is a disability?



I withdraw my comment on lawyers and accountants that I made above in regards to this particular law.

Damn, I pulled the wrong reference. Since i never claimed to be perfect I can only say it is my fault. I was doing some research for another board where the conflict between the ADA and property rights came up. Here is the proper citation.

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
OO)O(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
OOO)(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Public Accommodation

 

[Ravi]

So what's the problem? All y'all can open up hardware stores and put up signs that say "no coloreds" and life will go on.

 

[editec]

Okay I own a resturant.

Do you believe that I have the right to deny service to people in uniform?

Yes or no.

Why or why not?

Isn't the government denying me my FREEDOM to deny those people service?

Should I have that right?

Some of you who claim to be libertarians seem to be suggesting that I ought to have that right.

 

[sweetie]

You don't need the mainstream media to misrepresent libertarianism, you just need to talk to half of self-labeled libertarians...

...good writing and good points..3 cheers..

..but i'd have to say waaaaaaaaaay more than half!!..and virtually every 'libertarian' with a media megaphone is a poisonously stoooooooopid republicrat windbag..and, although i.m.e. 'libertarians' represent a large disproportionate share of 'monetary realists,' ~90% of self-styled 'libertarians' are ass-ignorant as to even the basics of 'our' stinking, insane, hideous, etc., 'money (issuance, etc.) system'..

RAVI SPEWSTherefore, a business that is open to serve the public cannot treat the public with different degrees of equality.



...(this from a stoooopid republicrat fuck who would work his foaming cakehole at length about some ignorant, two-bit bu$ine$$man...yet he remains silent and woefully ignorant about the fucking bank$ter bu$ine$$men to whom he is virtually en$laved)..

..strange priorities, republicrats...

...stfu, republicrats!..

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

 

[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.

Whether it was justified or not is beside the point.

The DOI and the Constitution clearly state that all "men" are created equal and we all enjoy all the freedoms. Therefore, a business that is open to serve the public cannot treat the public with different degrees of equality.

I'm sure it's clear as day in your brainwashed mind.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Okay I own a resturant.

Do you believe that I have the right to deny service to people in uniform?

Yes or no.

Why or why not?

Isn't the government denying me my FREEDOM to deny those people service?

Should I have that right?

Some of you who claim to be libertarians seem to be suggesting that I ought to have that right.

It's your restaurant, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason you want.

 

[2Parties]

Okay I own a resturant.

Do you believe that I have the right to deny service to people in uniform?

Yes or no.

Why or why not?

Isn't the government denying me my FREEDOM to deny those people service?

Should I have that right?

Some of you who claim to be libertarians seem to be suggesting that I ought to have that right.

It's your restaurant, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason you want.

If it is truly his restaurant than he has those options, if not he's a slave to everyone else.