Misrepresenting Libertarianism

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
64,448
Reaction score
22,525
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
:rolleyes:

They forgot to include the word Federal.

boo hoo
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.
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.
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,898
Reaction score
13,984
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
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.
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?:eusa_eh:
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
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?:eusa_eh:
I am pretty sure that if you check you will see that Paul won the Republican primary in Kentucky, not the Libertarian one. Take any issues you have up with him and his positions with the Republicans, not me.
 
OP
Oddball

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
64,448
Reaction score
22,525
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
:rolleyes:

They forgot to include the word Federal.

boo hoo
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?
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
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?
Do you support state's having the right to segregate? If yes in some cases, list the cases.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
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
Stop whining. We've all been exposed to the dis-ease of libertarian lunacies.

We have all heard the "free markets would get rid of racist businesses' arguments.

Libertarians are :cuckoo:
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,898
Reaction score
13,984
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
How many Libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. The Market will take care of it.
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,898
Reaction score
13,984
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters

xsited1

Agent P
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
17,746
Reaction score
5,777
Points
198
Location
Little Rock, AR
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.
 

JBeukema

Rookie
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
25,613
Reaction score
1,745
Points
0
Location
everywhere and nowhere
Once again Dude's only response is to call people names and hope noone notices his total lack of meaningful response or intellect
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top